Acoustic Noise and Magnetic Resonance Imaging<scp>:</scp> A Narrative/Descriptive Review

McJury, M.

doi:10.1002/jmri.27525

Cited by 38 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They include open magnet configuration for patient comfort, low acoustic noise levels during scanning, low sensitivity to metallic implants, less image susceptibility artifacts at air/tissue interfaces, and extremely low RF specific absorption rate (SAR). Conventional tunnel-shaped superconducting high-field MRI scanners produces high acoustic noise levels (with maximum SPL up to 120 dBA at 3 T) during scanning because of high field strength and fast gradient switching 35 , 39 . Acoustic noise 35 , 39 and claustrophobia 40 , 41 remain a long-standing issue for patient comfort, accessibility, and safety.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conventional tunnel-shaped superconducting high-field MRI scanners produces high acoustic noise levels (with maximum SPL up to 120 dBA at 3 T) during scanning because of high field strength and fast gradient switching 35 , 39 . Acoustic noise 35 , 39 and claustrophobia 40 , 41 remain a long-standing issue for patient comfort, accessibility, and safety. Up to 15% of patients who undergo MR examination in conventional scanners suffer from claustrophobia 40 , 41 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Up to 15% of patients who undergo MR examination in conventional scanners suffer from claustrophobia 40 , 41 . High acoustic noise levels during MRI can increase the risk of permanent hearing loss, cause temporary hearing threshold shift even with the standard MRI hearing protection measures 35 , 39 , and induce anxiety 42 , 43 , which often renders MRI unsuitable for several patient groups, such as those with sensory hypersensitivity disorders, neonates, and young children. Together with complete elimination of RF and magnetic shielding cages, our ULF MRI approach can offer a more patient-friendly alternative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recordings were made across six conditions with no subject inside magnet (i.e., when the scanner was off, on, and scanning with T1W, T2W, FLAIR and DWI protocols). To facilitate the comparison with acoustic noise level measurements at 3 T made in previous studies 35 , 39 , 64 , recordings of SPL made (in dB) at 0.055 T were further processed by applying an A-weighted filter (reported as dBA). In the A-weighted filter 35 , 39 , 64 , the decibel values of sound intensity at low frequencies (<1 kHz) and high frequencies (>6 kHz) are reduced to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human ear to sounds at different frequencies within the normal hearing range (20 Hz-20 kHz).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging is a key diagnostic tool in modern healthcare, yet it can be cost-prohibitive given the high installation, maintenance and operation costs of the machinery. There are approximately seven scanners per million inhabitants and over 90% are concentrated in high-income countries. We describe an ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner that operates using a standard AC power outlet and is low cost to build. Using a permanent 0.055 Tesla Samarium-cobalt magnet and deep learning for cancellation of electromagnetic interference, it requires neither magnetic nor radiofrequency shielding cages. The scanner is compact, mobile, and acoustically quiet during scanning. We implement four standard clinical neuroimaging protocols (T1- and T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery like, and diffusion-weighted imaging) on this system, and demonstrate preliminary feasibility in diagnosing brain tumor and stroke. Such technology has the potential to meet clinical needs at point of care or in low and middle income countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that evaluating the overall sound pressure levels produced by MRI sequences misses other aspects of the auditory environment that may impact the developing ear (McJury, 2021). For example, earplugs do not filter all frequencies equally, and different frequencies are blocked by foam versus silicone earplugs (Kvaløy, Berg, & Henriksen, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of protocols from 54 infant and toddler neuroimaging research labs

Hendrix¹,

Thomason²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infant and toddler MRI enables unprecedented insight into the developing brain. However, consensus about optimal data collection practices is lacking, which slows growth of the field and impedes replication efforts. The goal of this study was to collect systematic data across a large number of infant/toddler research laboratories to better understand preferred practices. Survey data addressed MRI acquisition strategies, scan success rates, visit preparations, scanning protocols, accommodations for families, study design, and policies regarding incidental findings. Respondents had on average 8 years’ experience in early life neuroimaging and represented more than fifty research laboratories. Areas of consensus across labs included higher success rates among newborns compared to older infants or toddlers, high rates of data loss across age groups, and age-specific scan preparation and participant accommodation. Researchers remain divided on best practices regarding incidental findings and decisions in longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. This study provides a summary of practices honed over years of work by a large collection of scientists, which may serve as an important resource for those new to the field. The ability to reference data about best practices facilitates future harmonization, data sharing, and reproducibility, all of which advance this important frontier in developmental science.

show abstract

Auditory Effects of Acoustic Noise From 3‐T Brain MRI in Neonates With Hearing Protection

Jin,

Zhao,

et al. 2024

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNeonates with immature auditory function (eg, weak/absent middle ear muscle reflex) could conceivably be vulnerable to noise‐induced hearing loss; however, it is unclear if neonates show evidence of hearing loss following MRI acoustic noise exposure.PurposeTo explore the auditory effects of MRI acoustic noise in neonates.Study TypeProspective.SubjectsTwo independent cohorts of neonates (N = 19 and N = 18; mean gestational‐age, 38.75 ± 2.18 and 39.01 ± 1.83 weeks).Field Strength/SequenceT1‐weighted three‐dimensional gradient‐echo sequence, T2‐weighted fast spin‐echo sequence, single‐shot echo‐planar imaging‐based diffusion‐tensor imaging, single‐shot echo‐planar imaging‐based diffusion‐kurtosis imaging and T2‐weighted fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery sequence at 3.0 T.AssessmentAll neonates wore ear protection during scan protocols lasted ~40 minutes. Equivalent sound pressure levels (SPLs) were measured for both cohorts. In cohort1, left‐ and right‐ear auditory brainstem response (ABR) was measured before (baseline) and after (follow‐up) MRI, included assessment of ABR threshold, wave I, III and V latencies and interpeak interval to determine the functional status of auditory nerve and brainstem. In cohort2, baseline and follow‐up left‐ and right‐ear distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) amplitudes were assessed at 1.2 to 7.0 kHz to determine cochlear function.Statistical TestWilcoxon signed‐rank or paired t‐tests with Bonferroni's correction were used to compare the differences between baseline and follow‐up ABR and DPOAE measures.ResultsEquivalent SPLs ranged from 103.5 to 113.6 dBA. No significant differences between baseline and follow‐up were detected in left‐ or right‐ear ABR measures (P > 0.999, Bonferroni corrected) in cohort1, or in DPOAE levels at 1.2 to 7.0 kHz in cohort2 (all P > 0.999 Bonferroni corrected except for left‐ear levels at 3.5 and 7.0 kHz with corrected P = 0.138 and P = 0.533).Data ConclusionA single 40‐minute 3‐T MRI with equivalent SPLs of 103.5–113.6 dBA did not result in significant transient disruption of auditory function, as measured by ABR and DPOAE, in neonates with adequate hearing protection.Evidence Level2.Technical EfficacyStage 5.

show abstract

Acoustic Noise and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative/Descriptive Review

Cited by 38 publications

References 78 publications

A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner

A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner

A survey of protocols from 54 infant and toddler neuroimaging research labs

Auditory Effects of Acoustic Noise From 3‐T Brain MRI in Neonates With Hearing Protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About