Table 7.

Analysis results of the two motion monitoring methods on the patient data set with the motion threshold of half of the slice thickness on SD (for SLIMM) and FD (for VVR-LM). Compared to no motion monitoring and VVR-LM, SLIMM collected the minimum necessary amount of data (based on the predefined criteria), leading to improved data quality (in terms of tSNR) and reduced scanning time (in terms of number of actually acquired volumes).

	# of volumes actually acquired				tSNR score
	Expectec	No Monitoring	VVR-LM	SLIMM	No Monitoring	VVR-LM	SLIMM
Patient #1 (resting state)	128	160	133	135	35.89	43.96	47.11
Patient #2 (resting state)	128	160	128	128	52.23	61.09	70.01
Patient #3 (finger tapping)	76	96	79	80	28.21	31.65	35.67