This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ronald P. Lesser, MD
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 600 N Wolfe St Baltimore, MD 21205

Meredith A. Weinstein, MD
Department of Radiology The Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Ave Cleveland, OH 44106

Arch Neurol. 1987;44(4):361.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We thank Dr Wiener for his comments regarding our article. He is correct in surmizing that two, rather than four, data acquisitions were utilized during the 120-ms TE and 2-s TR sequence on the 1.5-tesla unit; four data acquisitions are used on the 0.6-tesla unit. We regret the lack of clarity regarding this point. As he assumed, the third scan sequence was the result of software limitations at the time of the study, limitations no longer present. Finally, as noted above, only two signal acquisitions were utilized on the 1.5-tesla unit. We have found that we must use approximately twice as many data acquisitions on the 0.6-tesla unit in order to achieve a comparable signal-to-noise ratio. Measurements made at The Cleveland Clinic and elsewhere^1-3 indicate that the contrast-to-noise ratio increases linearly with increasing field strength. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?