Effect of routine MR imaging of the brain at 1.5 T on subsequent magnetoencephalography: results in nine volunteers.

PURPOSE To investigate whether routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the brain with a whole-body 1.5-T imager affects the results of subsequent magnetoencephalography (MEG). MATERIALS AND METHODS Nine healthy volunteers (six women, mean age of 23 years, age range of 20-27 years; three men, mean age of 24 years, age range of 23-25 years) underwent one MEG session before and two MEG sessions after MR imaging of the brain. The first MEG session was completed about 20 minutes before brain MR imaging began, the second MEG session (MEG 2) was performed within 30 minutes after MR imaging, and the third MEG session was performed 2 hours after MEG 2. Each MEG session involved measurement of spontaneous brain activity and, in seven patients, of brain activity during stimulation of the median nerve. MR imaging included T1- and T2-weighted fast spin-echo and gradient-echo sequences applied with a 1.5-T clinical imager. Data were compared by using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (general linear model) both with and without Greenhouse-Geisser correction. RESULTS MEG signals were detected and measured without difficulty in all volunteers. No statistically significant difference was seen between estimated noise at MEG before and after MR imaging (P =.588 with correction, P =.665 without correction). MEG records obtained in all volunteers enabled localization of evoked response to median nerve stimulation before and after MR imaging. No measurable differences were observed between relative power spectra of spontaneous brain activity before and after MR imaging (P >.290 with correction, P >or=.295 without correction). CONCLUSION No measurable effect of 1.5-T brain MR imaging on subsequent MEG was detected.

[1]  Herta Flor,et al.  Simultaneous electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging of primary and secondary somatosensory cortex in humans after electrical stimulation , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[2]  Frank G Shellock,et al.  Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: Implants and devices , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  M. Richardson Functional imaging in epilepsy. , 2002, Seizure.

[4]  J. D. de Certaines,et al.  Safety aspects and quality assessment in MRI and MRS: A challenge for health care systems in Europe , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[5]  Mark S. Cohen,et al.  Acquiring simultaneous EEG and functional MRI , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[6]  Gabriel Curio,et al.  Current multipole expansion to estimate lateral extent of neuronal activity: a theoretical analysis , 2000, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng..

[7]  K F King,et al.  Spiral Scan Peripheral Nerve Stimulation , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  F G Shellock,et al.  Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  J D Bourland,et al.  Review of Patient Safety in Time‐Varying Gradient Fields , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[10]  F G Shellock,et al.  Radiofrequency Energy‐Induced Heating During MR Procedures: A Review , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  S Matsuoka,et al.  IFCN recommended standards for short latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Report of an IFCN committee. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  G J Beers,et al.  Biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 200 MHz: a survey of the literature with special emphasis on possible magnetic resonance effects. , 1989, Magnetic resonance imaging.