Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 21;88(2):691–710. doi: 10.1002/mrm.29232

FIGURE 7.

MRM-29232-FIG-0007-c

Sagittal spiral spin‐echo imaging of a healthy volunteer at 0.55 T at isocenter (x = 0.0 mm). Comparison of image reconstructions using comparator Cartesian spin‐echo image (A), NUFFT reconstruction (B), King's method without static off‐resonance correction (C), and MaxGIRF reconstruction with static off‐resonance correction (Low‐rank approximation L = 30) (D). E, Zoomed‐in image of a brain region (blue box). F, Zoomed‐in image of a neck region (orange box). G, Static off‐resonance map. H, Time‐averaged concomitant fields map. I, Sum of the static off‐resonance map and time‐averaged concomitant fields map. Although MaxGIRF using static off‐resonance is shown in (F), MaxGIRF without static off‐resonance (not shown) is of comparable quality. Thus, this indicates that the improvements in the spine region by MaxGIRF are largely attributed to the methodological difference between King's method and MaxGIRF