2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2005.01.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Suppression of strong coupling artefacts in J-spectra

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
96
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
96
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Strong coupling artefacts were suppressed by phase cycling. 32 Before Fourier transformation, 2D J-RES spectra were multiplied by a combined sine-bell/exponential window function in the direct dimension and by a sine bell function in the incremented dimension. 33 Skyline projections were calculated and spectra were aligned.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Strong coupling artefacts were suppressed by phase cycling. 32 Before Fourier transformation, 2D J-RES spectra were multiplied by a combined sine-bell/exponential window function in the direct dimension and by a sine bell function in the incremented dimension. 33 Skyline projections were calculated and spectra were aligned.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The extent of the signal loss can vary considerably depending on the field strength, the used coil and the sequence parameters. One example is the doublet at 1.33 ppm of lactate, which can completely disappear at 3 T for TE 144 ms. Strategies to prevent or alleviate the signal loss due to anomalous J-modulation present both advantages and disadvantages [12,49,51].…”
Section: Chemical Shift Misregistration and J-modulation Artifactsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several editing sequences cannot be applied with 1.5-T scanners since they need higher SNR and sufficient spectral resolution. Examples of unresolved metabolites due to the J-coupling phenomenon are the Glx-components glutamate, glutamine and GABA, which cannot be easily differentiated from each other at 1.5 T and therefore have been frequently treated as a metabolite group [49,51,[56][57][58].…”
Section: Spectral Editingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(8), since the frequency of the dips is smaller than J and the amplitude of the modulations is larger than expected. The origin of this discrepancy could be due to strong coupling artefacts [36,37]. The (poor) fits led to R 2 = 0.42 ± 0.7 s À1 for the PFCT echoes and R 2 = 0.39 ± 0.3 s À1 for the MQF sequence.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%