Comparison of Reduced and Full Field of View in Diffusion-Weighted MRI on Image Quality: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reduced field of view (rFOV) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MRI shows potential for enhanced image quality compared with traditional full field of view (fFOV) DWI. Evaluating rFOV DWI's impact on image quality is important for clinical adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of rFOV DWI in improving image quality, focusing on artifact reduction, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) improvement, and lesion detectability. STUDY TYPE: Meta-analysis. POPULATION: Systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science ending in January 2024. Thirteen studies with 765 participants focusing on DWI quality using rFOV was analyzed. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: SS-EPI, Rtr-SS-EPI, 2D-SS-EPI at 3.0 T. ASSESSMENT: Two investigators performed the data extraction. QUADAS-2 assessed bias. The image quality assessment of rFOV and fFOV DWI were compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: Standardized mean difference (SMD) was utilized to evaluate and standardize MRI image quality. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and publication bias was evaluated with Egger's test. RESULTS: The QUADAS-2 analysis revealed that most studies exhibited a low risk of bias and minimal concerns regarding applicability. Statistical analysis indicated that rFOV DWI yielded higher subjective image quality scores (SMD = 0.535, 95% CI: 0.339, 0.731, I2 = 45.7%) compared with fFOV DWI and was more effective in reducing artifacts (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.209, 0.672, I2 = 42.3%) than fFOV DWI. However, a decrease in SNR was noted with rFOV DWI (SMD = -0.670, 95% CI: -1.187 to -0.152, I2 = 87.9%). Additionally, rFOV DWI demonstrated enhancements in lesion visibility (SMD = 0.432, 95% CI: -1.187, -0.152, I2 = 53.1%) and anatomical details (SMD = 0.598, 95% CI: 0.121, 1.075, I2 = 90.8%). DATA CONCLUSION: rFOV DWI enhances MRI image quality by reducing artifacts and improving lesion visibility with a SNR trade-off. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Effect of age and pop out distracter on attended field of view.

PURPOSE: To investigate the functional field of view (FFOV) of younger and older individuals using the attended field of view (AFOV), a method which allows for eye and head movement. The impact of a pop out distracter and a dual task on the FFOV measure was also investigated. METHODS: Nine young adult (25±6 years) and 9 older participants (72±4 years) took part in the experiment. The AFOV test involved the binocular detection and localization of a white target (Landolt-C) in a field of 24 white rings (distracters). The further AFOV tests were modified to include the presence of a pop out distracter, a dual task condition, and a combination of the two. RESULTS: Older observers had lower viewing efficiency (log [1/presentation time]) in all conditions (pooled mean across conditions: older: 0.05±0.02; younger: 0.48±0.04) than the younger group. The addition of dual or a pop out distracter did not affect the older group (mean difference ∼104±150ms and ∼124±122ms respectively) but the additional pop out distracter reduced the efficiency of the younger group for targets near fixation (mean difference ∼68±35ms). CONCLUSION: Better viewing efficiency was observed in younger individuals compared to older individuals. Difficulty in disregarding irrelevant stimuli and thereby resorting to inefficient search strategy is proposed as the reason for the differences. The finding that both older and younger individuals are not affected significantly by the presence of the irrelevant pop out distracter has implications in situations such as driving or hazard avoidance. In such scenarios, search performance is likely not impaired beyond what is found with distracters (visual clutter) in the environment.