Assessing suitability of ultra-low-field MRI for TES electric field models

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,861 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objective Recent ultra-low-field (ULF) MRI systems provide an option for more accessible and cost-effective imaging to widely used higher field (HF, usually 3T) systems. However, it remains uncertain whether ULF scans can be used for reliable TES current-flow modeling as opposed to using 3T MRI.

Methods

We used raw anatomical scans of 23 healthy adults from 64 mT and 3T systems. We enhanced the 64 mT scans using SynthSR. Using our established current-flow modeling pipeline we determined the electric fields (EF) for the ULF and 3T scans induced by the classic M1-SO electrode montage. We quantified the differences in EF at three regions of interest (ROI): left motor cortex (LMC), anterior commissure (AC), and left hippocampus (LHC).

Results

At the cortical ROI (LMC), the individual mean EF based on a 3T scan was found to be 27% higher than the corresponding ULF scan. The average mean relative error was found to be 40%. At AC, the individual mean EF based on a 3T scan continued to be elevated by about 13% in magnitude with respect to the corresponding ULF scan with a mean error range of 31-34%. At LHC, comparison of the induced individual mean EF magnitudes indicated no clear bias between 3T-based and ULF-based models. The average mean relative error at this level dropped to ∼20%.

Discussion

The substantial decrease in cortical EF when using an ULF scan is predominantly explained by the overestimation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) noted by prior morphological comparison studies. Scaling up EF magnitude to match predicted cortical values to a 3T scan may be considered depending on the modeling question being addressed. While preliminary, our results suggest an “equalizing” effect between ULF and 3T predictions with increasing depth within the brain. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00