Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Aug 17;45(2):542–555. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25400

FIGURE 4. Representative rest FPP images for three of the studied healthy volunteers.

FIGURE 4

All images correspond to the same myocardial enhancement phase (8 frames after initial wash-in of contrast agent in the LV cavity). Images in the top panel (a1–a3) correspond to the latest vendor-provided conventional FPP method with rate R=2 parallel imaging. The middle row (b1–b3) corresponds to the proposed imaging technique, i.e., optimally apodized reconstruction with hi-res acquisition using rate R=4 parallel imaging. There are significantly more segments affected by DRA in the top row (conventional method) compared to middle row (proposed method). Images in the bottom panel (c1–c3) correspond to the hi-res reconstruction (i.e., R=4 parallel imaging without apodization). As can be seen, these images suffer from low SNR and show thin yet detectable DRAs (red arrows). Image SNR is significantly improved after apodization and the DRA is reduced due to suppression of Gibbs ringing effects (consistent with Figs. 2 and 3).