Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63:5i–58 (20i0)

Tailored RF Pulse for Magnetization Inversion at
Ultrahigh Field
Aaron C. Hurley,i,2 Ali Al-Radaideh,i Li Bai,2 Uwe Aickelin,2 Ron Coxon,i Paul Glover,i
and Penny A. Gowlandi*
The radiofrequency (RF) transmit field is severely inhomogeneous at ultrahigh field due to both RF penetration and RF coil
design issues. This particularly impairs image quality for
se- quences that use inversion pulses such as magnetization
pre- pared rapid acquisition gradient echo and limits the
use of quantitative arterial spin labeling sequences such as
flow-at- tenuated inversion recovery. Here we have used a
search algo- rithm to produce inversion pulses tailored to take
into account the heterogeneity of the RF transmit field at 7 T.
This created a slice selective inversion pulse that worked
well (good slice profile and uniform inversion) over the range
of RF amplitudes typically obtained in the head at 7 T while
still maintaining an experimentally achievable pulse length and
pulse amplitude in the brain at 7 T. The pulses used were
based on the frequency offset correction inversion technique,
as well as time dilation of functions, but the RF amplitude,
frequency sweep, and gradient functions were all generated
using a genetic algorithm with an evaluation function that
took into account both the desired inversion profile and the
transmit field inhomogeneity.
Magn Reson Med 63:51–58,
2010.
Key words: RF pulse; B1 nonuniformity; inversion profile; genetic algorithm; reshaping function; time resampling; weighted
inversion profile accuracy (WIPA)

The radiofrequency (RF) transmit field is severely inhomogeneous at ultrahigh field due to both RF penetration and
RF coil design issues. This is a particular problem for
techniques that use inversion pulses such as magnetization prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE)
(i) and arterial spin labeling sequences such as flow attenuated inversion recovery (2). A number of approaches to
solving this problem are being investigated, generally requiring additional hardware. Here we have taken a simpler
approach, using a search algorithm to produce inversion
pulses tailored to take into account the heterogeneity of
the RF transmit field at 7 T. The goal was to create a slice
selective inversion pulse that worked well (good slice
profile and low sensitivity to RF inhomogeneity) over the
range of RF amplitudes typically obtained in vivo while
still maintaining an experimentally achievable pulse
length and pulse amplitude in the brain at 7 T.
The standard inversion pulse used in MRI is the hyperbolic secant inversion pulse (3), which has previously

1Sir

Peter Mansfield Magnetic Resonance Centre, University of Nottingham.
of
Computer
Science,
University
of
Nottingham.
Grant sponsor: EU Fp6 Marie Curie Action Programme; Grant number: MESTCT-2005-021170.
*Correspondence to: P. A. Gowland, XX, Sir Peter Mansfield Magnetic Resonance Centre, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. Email: penny.gowland@nottingham.ac.uk
Received 4 April 2009; revised 23 June 2009; accepted 17 July 2009.
DOI 10.1002/mrm.22167
2Department

been subject to reshaping (frequency offset corrected inversion [FOCI] pulses) to provide improved slice profile
over a wide range of pulse powers (4) and to time resampling/dilation (variable rate selective excitation) to reduce
the pulse power or improve inversion at low RF amplitudes (5,6). In this work, the RF amplitude, frequency
sweep, and gradient functions were optimized using a
genetic algorithm (7) with an evaluation function that took
into account both the desired inversion slice profile and
sensitivity to transmit field inhomogeneity, within the
constraints of maximum RF field amplitude (Bi) and fixed
pulse length. We used this to optimize two similar pulses.
The first pulse is the C-shape FOCI (C-FOCI) pulse, which
is defined by three variables ( , , and Amax), with no time
resampling. The second pulse we call the time resampled
FOCI (TR-FOCI) pulse, which uses a time resampling function and a more general reshaping functions and is defined
by ii variables.
A genetic algorithm was used to search a large space of
possible reshaping and resampling functions to find tailored solutions for ultrahigh field, with an evaluation function (describing the features being optimized) related to
slice profile and sensitivity to Bi nonuniformity. Similar
work in the past (8) optimized the amplitude at a set of
evenly spaced points within the wave form, the rest of the
points being filled in by cubic spline interpolation before
evaluation. Our system differs in that it uses the FOCI
approach, so that the amplitude and frequency modulation
functions are not optimized directly, but instead their
reshaping and resampling functions are optimized. The RF
pulses are initially defined by a pair of orthogonal amplitude and
frequency modulation envelopes, e.g.,
(sech,tanh). These functions are defined over the range of
normalized time (—i<t <i), and time resampling changes
the sampling of the functions from uniform intervals to
variable intervals. Our method maintains symmetry of
“time” about zero and the starting and end points are held
fixed.
The aim of this work was to produce inversion pulses for
different applications at 7 T. Pulses with various slice
thicknesses were produced that would be suitable for
three-dimensional imaging (with MPRAGE), and arterial
spin labeling. Short pulses were also optimized. This paper outlines the genetic algorithm used to optimize the
pulses, and in particular the evaluation function used. It
then presents the optimized pulses and their simulated
and experimental behavior.
THEORY
C-FOCI pulses (4) can be generated from the three parameters contained in the vector [Amax
] chosen via a search

5i

52

Hurley et al.

FIG. 1.
A C-FOCI (dotted
line) and a TR-FOCI pulse (solid
line). a: RF amplitude,
(b)
RF
fre- quency,
and (c)
gradient ampli- tude modulation
functions. d: Schematic diagram
illustrating the meanings of the
parameters used to define the
gradient re- shaping function.

algorithm. TR-FOCI pulses are based on FOCI pulses with
time resampling (6) and can be generated from the 11
parameters contained in the vector [Amax, w, r1, r2, r3, r4, r5,
, , Ti, T2]. The first seven terms define the shaping function, and
are parameters inherited from FOCI pulses,
and Ti
and T2 define a time resampling function.
Typical pulse profiles (RF amplitude, RF frequency
modulation, and gradient amplitude) are shown in Fig. 1ac. The pulses are optimized using a genetic algorithm, and
to do this we need to define an evaluation function, to
be described later, which we have termed the weighted
inversion pro- file accuracy (WIPA) function.
Simulation Program
In order to be able to evaluate and optimize the performance of a pulse, its effect on the magnetization must be
simulated. For this we used a program that simulated
rotations in the rotating frame due to the B1 amplitude and
off resonance, but not relaxation. The pulses were sampled
at 200 points corresponding to the experimental sampling
intervals. The profile was estimated at 1000 different positions over a width M mm, with the desired inversion slab
being of thickness of M/2 mm at the center of the profile.
The magnetization was assumed to be at equilibrium before the pulse.

where i is the index corresponding to distance (in sample points) from the center of slice profile, I is the ideal
profile which is set to +1 for i — 500 <251 and —1
elsewhere, and V is the actual inversion profile as determined from the simulation. Figure 2a shows the ideal
inversion profile and a representative actual inversion profile.
Figure 2b demonstrates the variation in IPA with B1
amplitude for two different pulse shapes. It can be seen
that although the pulse that generated the dashed line
gives a higher peak value of IPA, the pulse that generated
the solid line performs more consistently over a range of
different B1 amplitudes. However, it would be impracticable to evaluate every candidate pulse at many RF
ampli- tudes, as shown in Fig. 2b, so instead the IPA was
evalu- ated at three values, a lower limit L1 = 3 T, an
upper limit
L 1 + L3
(see Fig. 1e), and
L3 = 7 T, and the midpoint L2 =
2
then a WIPA was calculated:

Evaluation Function
The evaluation function characterizes both the slice profile
of the pulse and its sensitivity to RF amplitude variations.
We define an inversion profile accuracy (IPA) function:
IPA

1000
500

(I(i) — V(i)) 2
i=—500

[1]
FIG. 2. a: Comparison of the ideal (solid) with an actual (dashed)
inversion slice profile. b: Comparison of the IPA functions for two
pulses.

Tailored RF Pulse for Magnetization Inversion

WIPA(L 1,L 3) = IPA(L 1)

L3
+
+
L1
L2 L3

53

L2
+
L
L1
2+
L3
L1
[2]
+ IPA(L 3)
L1 + +
L2 L3
+ IPA(L 2)

The weighting emphasizes performance at the lower
limit since pulses generally perform better at higher RF
amplitudes. Initial experiments showed that if the WIPAs
were calculated at only two points, this tended to produce
pulses with IPA peaking at those points, whereas the inclusion of the third point, L2, tended to produce smoother
curves (rather than three peaks). The RF amplitude values
3, 5, and 7 uT were chosen as representative of very low
RF amplitudes in vivo.
It will be explained further below that for pulses that
achieved an acceptable value of WIPA, the full IPA curves
(Fig. 2b) were calculated, and the area under the full IPA
curves was found (integrated IPA). The pulse giving the
maximum value of integrated IPA was selected as optimum.

parameters: the length w, the starting height of the shaping
function Amax, and a parameter r1, which determines the
r1 Amax
slope, which is given by —
. Therefore, the value of
w
the linear segment at the end point (t = w — 1) is c =
Amax(1 — r1), and the linear segment is described by

(

A 1(t) = A max 1 —

[3]

zw(t) = —A(t)uttanh(tt)
G(t) = A(t)G s
where Bi(t) is the final amplitude modulation function,
zw(t) is the frequency modulation function, and G(t) is the
gradient modulation function. The sech and tanh functions are the underlying modulation functions of the hyperbolic secant pulse, Gs, is the time-constant slice selection gradient, and A(t) reshapes all the modulation
functions. A(t) is continuous and symmetric and monotonically increases with t .
The C-FOCI pulse modulation function (A) consists of
two constant segments joined by a curved segment, which
is defined by the cosh function, with the length of each
segment being a function of the max value of the gradient
shape (dotted line in Fig. 1c). The TR-FOCI pulse also uses
a modulation function defined by three segments, but the
first (A1) is linear, the curved section (A2) is defined by a
polynomial of even terms, and the third segment is a
mirror image of A1 (solid line in Fig. 1c). For the TR-FOCI
pulse, the shaping function is defined by the first seven
terms of the vector [Amax, w, r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, u, t, Ti, T2] (Fig.
1d). For negative t, the linear segment is described by three

[4]

A 2(t) = b(1)t 2 + b(2)t 4 + b(3)t 6 + b(4)t 8 + A min [5]
The inputs r2, r3, r4, r5 determine the coefficients of the
polynomial so that:
A min = r2c (c> = Amin
b(1) = r 3

B 1(t) = A(t)sech(tt)

)

The curved segment is described by a polynomial with
even powers and positive coefficients of order 8 for the
sake of efficiency of the search:

Shaping Functions
The flip angle of an adiabatic pulse is determined by the
frequency modulation, rather than amplitude modulation
of the pulse, provided that the pulse meets the adiabatic
condition. FOCI pulses are based on the hyperbolic secant
pulse but include additional gradient modulation with
parallel reshaping of the amplitude modulation and frequency modulation envelopes to increase the periods of
the pulse for which the adiabatic condition holds for a
given resonance offset (4). They can be defined by the
following equations:

r1 (t + 1)
w

= 0)

c — A min
(w — 1)2

b(2) = r 4(1 — r 3)

[6b]

c — A min
(w — 1)4

b(3) = r 5(1 — r 4)(1 — r 3)

c — A min
(w — 1)6

b(4) = (1 — r 5)(1 — r 4)(1 — r 3)

[6a]

c — A min
(w — 1)8

[6c]

[6d]

[6e]

ensuring that A2 (w — 1) = c and so continuity of A,
which is essential for a practical gradient waveform (one
which does not exceed the maximum allowed slew rate).
Time Resampling
Given a resampling function T(t), the equations describing
the new pulse become:
B 1(t) = A(t)sech(tT(t))

[7]

zw(t) = —A(t)uttanh(tT(t))
G(t) = A(t)G s
T is defined to be monotonically increasing from —1 to
1. We limited our search to polynomials of odd powers of
order 5:

T(t) =

T 1t 5 + T 2 t 3 + t
T1 + T2 + 1

[8]

The coefficient for t1 is redundant since the function is
scaled to remain in the range [—1,1]. The parameters were
constrained in the following ranges: 1 < Amax < 30, 0.5 <
u < 10, 1 < t < 10, [0<ri <1 (i = 1,2,3,4)], [0< T i <5, i
=

54

Hurley et al.

point crossover, the points are chosen randomly. However,
in this case the vector [Amax w r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 u t
Ti T2] naturally falls into four subsections describing
distinct aspects of the pulse, and within which the
elements are highly connected: elements 1 to 3 determine
the line seg- ment of the reshaping function, elements 4 to
7 determine the other aspects of the reshaping function,
elements 8 and 9 relate to the frequency sweep, and
elements 10 and 11 are time resampling parameters.
Therefore it is efficient to keep these groups of elements
together and perform two- point crossover at (mi = 4 and
m2 = 8), (mi = 4 and m2 =
10), (mi = 8 and m2 = 10), and (mi = 3 and m2 = 8
since element 3 determines the start of the curve
described by elements 4-7). Two hundred (4 X 50)
new vectors are generated in this manner. The resulting
50 vectors with the highest WIPA values are then
mutated.
Mutation. Given a vector Wi, a new vector is produced,
Ui, such that:
U i = W i(1 + Ra(1 — (1/b))a)

[9]

1,2]. An example of one vector that gave good early results
is [4.94 0.36 0.84 0.24 0.31 0.80 3.99 6.07 6.10 0.28 1.35].
The limitations are set to narrow the search space and
were informed by exploratory data. There are further hardware limits that must also be taken into account, and these
are discussed below.
The following description of the genetic algorithm is for
TR-FOCI pulse, but the C-FOCI pulse was optimized by a
similar process.

where a (0 < a < 1) and b (1 < b < ) are variables that
control the size of the mutation and R is a random variable
(—1 < R < 1). A series of tests of a series of discrete values
of a and b found that a = 0.05 and b = 50 resulted in the
most dynamic move upwards in WIPA.
Tournament selection. This process takes 250 vectors
(350 for the initial population) that have all been evaluated
and divides them randomly into 50 groups of five vectors
(seven for the initial population). The “winner” of the
“tournament” is the vector with the highest evaluation
within each group and is chosen as the “first parent”
Pi. The second parent, P2, is chosen randomly from the
re- maining four or six losers. The 50 (Pi,P2) pairs are
then used in two-point crossover.

Optimization With a Genetic Algorithm

Greedy Hill Climbing

We generated an initial population of vectors by taking 350
vectors with the highest WIPA from 5000 randomly generated vectors (within allowed ranges for each parameter).
There were then two stages to the genetic algorithm (Fig. 3).

This procedure was performed on the 10 best vectors from
the final iteration independently. For a given vector [Amax
w r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 u t Ti T2], one parameter at a time
was changed within its allowed range, leaving the rest
of the vector constant, and the value of that parameter
that gave the highest WIPA was chosen. This is then
repeated for each parameter of the vector in turn. The
values tested were chosen at random intervals in an
allowed range (the number of values tested was a
function of the size of the range). This search of each of
the vector’s parameters in turn was repeated until no
significant improvement oc- curred (<0.5% increase in
WIPA).
The final vector is chosen from the 10 vectors that went
through greedy hill climbing by numerically integrating
the IPA curves (Fig. 2b) from 0 to 10 uT at 0.1-uT intervals.
The vector yielding the highest integral is chosen to generate the TR-FOCI pulse.

FIG. 3. Diagram illustrating the genetic algorithm as used for optimizing the TR-FOCI pulse.

Iteration
One iteration uses four independent tournament selections,
with the 200 (50 X 4) output pairs subjected to two-point
crossovers, whose outputs are passed to the next iteration.
Mutations of the 50 two-point crossover vectors with the
highest WIPA are also passed on to the next iteration.
A number of iterations are run, with the output from the
previous iteration being the input for the current iteration.
Once there is no discernable improvement from the previous 10 iterations (<0.5% increase in maximum WIPA), the
algorithm passes onto to the next phase, greedy hill climbing. We first describe the three processes involved to complete one iteration:
Two-point crossover. This is the process whereby the
and P2 are combined. Given two
two vectors Pi
crossover points mi and m2, a new vector Q is created
according to Q = [Pi(1: mi — 1) P2(mi: m2 — 1)
Pi(m2:end)]. Often in

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The genetic algorithm was used to design TR-FOCI and CFOCI pulses to invert 1-, 5-, and 50-mm slice thickness, for a
maximum gradient amplitude of 33 mT/m and a length T =
13 ms, over a B1 range of 3-15 uT, corresponding to the range

Tailored RF Pulse for Magnetization Inversion

55

Table 1
Vectors of Parameters Defining the Optimum C-FOCI and TR-FOCI Pulses for a Range of Different Slice Thicknesses and Pulse
Lengths
Slice
thickness (mm)

Pulse
length (ms)

C-FOCI

TR-FOCI

1
5
50
200

13
13
13
5

(1.43 5.46 3.64)
(1.67 5.07 17.14)
(19.8 5.41 1.45)
(21.87 4.25 2.15)

(2.88 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.68 1.00 0.29 2.33 4.27 0.10 0.40)
(3.99 0.28 0.67 0.11 0.22 0.09 0.96 5.83 5.82 0.14 1.21)
(5.98 0.32 0.73 0.18 0.33 0.81 0.04 4.9 4.90 0.00 0.83)
(3.32 0.30 0.64 0.27 0.59 0.00 1.00 7.71 3.90 0.25 0.40)

observed in vivo. A shorter TR-FOCI pulse was also designed
for practical non–slice selective (200 mm) inversion for a
pulse length of 5 ms, but for this pulse the evaluation function was modified to give less weight to the sharpness of the
slice profile. A hyperbolic secant (HSC) pulse (T = 13 ms,
u = 6.25, t = 4.5) was also simulated to match the pulse that
was standard on the scanner.
The maximum gradient strength used in the pulse was
set to an initial value of G’max = 1.15 Amaxut/SL
(where SL = slice thickness), and then the required value
of Gmax was found by multiplying G’max by the ratio of
simulated slice thickness (width of profile at zero crossing
for initial value of G’max) to the desired slice thickness.
If this re- sulted in Gmax > 33 mT/m (the maximum
gradient avail- able on the system), then Gmax was limited
to be 33 mT/m, thus punishing pulses unable to achieve
the desired slice thickness for practical gradient strength
restrictions. There are also hardware limits on the
maximum frequency sweep of 50 kHz, which has the
effect of limiting the product of Amax, u, and t to 2050.
Simulations were used to compare the inversion profiles
of three different pulses (TR-FOCI, C-FOCI and HSC) over
amplitudes 4-13 uT. To test the
the range of B1
pulses experimentally, they were used to invert a slice
perpen- dicular to the imaging plane of an EPI scan, at the
isocenter of the magnet/gradient system. The gradient
waveform amplitude was adjusted to set the slice
thickness to 30 mm (in the case of pulses for 5-mm
inversion) to provide ade- quate resolution across the
profile. Experiments were per-

FIG. 4. Simulated inversion profiles for HSC, C-FOCI, and TRFOCI pulses at various level of RF
amplitude and for differing slice
thicknesses.

formed on a 7-T Philips Achieva scanner with a 16-channel Nova Medical brain receive coil, and using a salinefilled, spherical phantom. Data were acquired at a variety
of inversion times and a long pulse repetition time. The
resulting images could be fitted to S(inversion time) =
So(1 — Ke—inversion time/T1) on a pixel-by-pixel basis for So, T1
and K, so that the resulting maps of K gave the inversion
efficiency across the slice profile. This was carried out not
only for the standard B1 amplitude used for the C-FOCI
pulses but also for a range of lower amplitudes to simulate
the effects of RF heterogeneity.
We also compared the use of the optimized pulses to
provide a slab inversion in whole-head brain MPRAGE
scans (pulse repetition time = 15 ms, shot-to-shot intervals
3000 ms, turbo field echo (TFE) factor = 148, echo time
5.9, inversion time = 1050 ms, flip angle = 8, resolution
0.6 mm isotropic, matrix size 320, radial k-space sampling)
in several subjects.
Further simulations were carried out to investigate the
effect of gradient amplifier nonidealities or eddy currents
on pulse performance by convolving the gradient waveforms with an exponential function with a decay constant
of 5 sec-1. The performance of the pulses far from resonance was also investigated.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the parameters for the optimum C-FOCI and
TR-FOCI pulses inverting various slice thicknesses and

56

FIG. 5.
a: Experimental inversion profiles for HSC, C-FOCI,
and TR-FOCI pulse shapes for nominal RF amplitudes 15, 7.5, and 5
uT. b: Scans at 7 T of phantom near the null point for inversion at a
nominal RF amplitude of 5 uT for HSC, C-FOCI, and TR-FOCI
pulses.

pulse lengths. Figure 4 shows the simulated slice profiles
for the different pulses at a range of RF amplitudes (over
the range encountered in vivo at 7 T). For the 1-mm slice
thickness, 13-ms pulse, it can be seen that TR-FOCI performs well over a broad range of RF amplitude, whereas
the C-FOCI performs well at medium to low RF amplitudes

FIG. 7. Simulated inversion profiles for HSC, C-FOCI, and TR-FOCI
pulse shapes for nominal RF amplitudes 15, 7.5, and 5 uT.

Hurley et al.

FIG. 6. a: Transverse MPRAGE images using HSC, C-FOCI,
and TR-FOCI for inversion. b: Coronal MPRAGE images for C-FOCI
and TR-FOCI pulses, showing improved contrast at base of brain for
TR- FOCI.

but performs poorly at high RF amplitude (the C-FOCI
could be optimized for high rf amplitude but only at the
expense of its low RF amplitude performance). For such a
thin slice, the limits on gradient strength mean that the
bandwidth of the pulse must be low, which limits the
product of Amax, u and t, but the pulse performance (in

FIG. 8. a: The original gradient shapes (–) and a distorted equivalent. b: Inversion profiles at different levels of RF amplitude, without
(–) and with gradient distortion.

Tailored RF Pulse for Magnetization Inversion

terms of slice profile) is reduced if Amax is limited.
The profiles for the hyperbolic secant are shown for
compari- son and are the same for all slice thicknesses
since the pulse defined on the scanner is a relatively low
bandwidth pulse and so does not exceed the available
gradient even for a 1-mm slice. Figure 4 also shows that
for the 5-mm slice, 13-ms pulse, the C-FOCI pulse
performs better than the HSC pulse for B1 < 10 uT,
although the profile be- comes increasingly distorted as
the amplitude falls very low. In contrast, the TR-FOCI
pulse retains a good slice profile until very low RF
amplitudes. At high B1 ampli- tudes >10 mT, all pulses
perform well, with the C-FOCI pulse providing the
optimum slice profile. Figure 5 shows that this TR-FOCI
pulse also gave a good slice profile experimentally,
with low sensitivity to reduced B1 ampli- tude. However
the experimental inversion profiles for all pulses are
somewhat more distorted than predicted by the
simulations, particularly for the C-FOCI pulse. Figure 4
also shows that the 50-mm slice, 13-ms pulse shows similar behavior to that for the 5-mm-slice pulse: the C-FOCI
profile started to degrade at 4 uT, whereas the TR-FOCI
continued to invert with a very good profile at this RF
amplitude. Figure 6 demonstrates the use of these pulses
in vivo. The HSC pulse performed very poorly, as expected
in regions on the brain where RF inhomogeneities are
strong (e.g., at the temporal lobes in Fig. 6). The C-FOCI
pulse led to loss of gray matter/white matter (GM/WM)
contrast in the cerebellum (see Fig. 6b), whereas the TRFOCI pulse retained GM/WM contrast in the cerebellum.
Figure 7 shows the simulated profiles for the 200-mm,
5-ms pulses at different RF amplitudes, demonstrating that
a stable inversion could be achieved for very short pulse
using an optimized TR-FOCI pulse.
Convolving the gradient waveform with an exponential
function with a decay constant of 5 sec-1 designed to simulate the effects of eddy currents or nonideal amplifiers
resulted in errors in the inverted slice profile for both a
C-FOCI and TR-FOCI but had little effect on the profile of
the HSC pulse (see Fig. 8). The effect was worse for the
C-FOCI than the TR-FOCI pulse. Further simulations
showed that errors in the gradient waveform during the
periods when the RF amplitude was high had a more
significant effect on the slice profile than errors at the start
of the pulse when the RF amplitude is changing slowly
and the adiabatic condition is easily met.
Figure 9 shows that off resonance, at very high power
the C-FOCI pulse shows significant side bands that are less
evident with the TR-FOCI pulse.
DISCUSSION
A genetic algorithm has been used to design a range of
slice selective inversion pulses that can perform well
across the range of B1 amplitudes currently achievable in
the human brain at 7 T with commonly available hardware, producing pulses suitable for three-dimensional imaging and arterial spin labeling. Both standard C-FOCI and
TR-FOCI pulses were investigated, and it was found that,
for the evaluation function used here, the C-FOCI provided
the sharpest (most square) slice profile at high RF power,
but the performance of the TR-FOCI pulse was most robust
to variations in B1 amplitude. The pulses designed here

57

FIG. 9. Inversion profiles for C-FOCI and TR-FOCI pulses showing
distortion beyond the slice region for very high RF amplitudes,
particularly for C-FOCI.

could also be adapted for use at larger slice thicknesses by
scaling the slice select gradient, although with increased
sensitivity to field inhomogeneity. This builds on the previous work of Yongbi et al. (9) and Ordidge et al. (4), who
proposed the use of a high value for Amax (10-10.5) for the
C-FOCI pulse to give a sharper profile, with reasonable
robustness to variations in B1 amplitude, for larger slice
thickness.
The TR-FOCI variables can also be used to describe the
C-FOCI pulse by approximating the cosh function used to
describe the shaping function by a Maclaurin expansion,
calculating the width of the linear segment as a function of
Amax and setting its slope factor (r1) to zero and the time
resampling coefficients to zero. In other words, the approximated C-FOCI pulses can be considered to be a subset of
the TR-FOCI pulses and so were contained within the
search space of the genetic algorithm optimization of the
TR-FOCI pulses. Therefore, since the result of the optimization of the TR-FOCI pulse was not a C-FOCI pulse, this
implies that the C-FOCI pulses are not optimal for the
evaluation function chosen here.
Clearly, the optimization (and in particular the evaluation function) should be tailored for the specific application (e.g., slab inversion in MPRAGE sequences compared
to thin slice inversions for arterial spin labeling), hardware
and sequence limits (maximum gradient amplitude and
pulse length), and specific experimental conditions (range
of B1
and amplitude of static polarizing field [B0]
inhomo- geneities expected). The tradeoff between edge
sharpness and robustness to variations in B1 amplitude can
be altered by adjusting the weighting of the edge and
center of the profile in the evaluation function.
Simulations showed that reducing the length (T) of TRFOCI, C-FOCI or HSC pulses made the slice profile less
sharp and the pulse more sensitive to RF inhomogeneity,
although this effect was less pronounced for TR-FOCI, and
in fact it was possible to produce a very robust TR-FOCI
pulse that could invert for a low integrated RF power.
The simulations took no account of B0 inhomogeneity,
which is particularly problematic at high field and will

58

change the performance of the pulse lead to distortion of
slice profiles in arterial spin labeling (10) and also in
saturation bands. Given the subject-specific nature of the
B0 field inhomogeneities and the spatial variation in the
B0 field gradients, it is not feasible to include the effects
of these field gradients in the optimization. However,
they can be minimized by designing low-bandwidth
pulses to be used with higher gradient amplitudes.
These simula- tions took also no account of the effect of
relaxation during the pulse, which would alter
the
performance particularly for the longer pulses.
The simulations did not limit the gradient slew rate, nor
take account of nonidealities in the gradient waveform due
to eddy currents or unexpected performance of the gradient amplifiers, but due to the nature of the gradient waveforms, the slew rates for all pulses mentioned are well
below the specification of the gradient system. Further
simulations showed that nonidealities of the gradient
waveforms had little effect on the HSC pulse (as expected)
but resulted in errors in the inverted slice profile for both
a C-FOCI and TR-FOCI, although this effect was worse for
the C-FOCI than the TR-FOCI pulse (see Fig. 8). Further
simulations showed that errors in the gradient waveform
during the periods when the RF amplitude was high have
more effect on the slice profile than errors at the start of the
pulse when the RF amplitude is changing slowly and the
adiabatic condition is easily met. Furthermore, although
simulations suggested that the C-FOCI pulse should give a
better slice profile than TR-FOCI at high RF amplitudes,
experimentally it was found that the C- FOCI pulse gave
distorted slice profiles when the slices were inverted away
from isocenter (results not presented), and we suggest that
this effect is due to the effect of eddy currents or other
errors in the gradient waveform. Since the TR-FOCI pulse
gradient reshaping function is smoother than that for the
C-FOCI pulse, it is expected to be less sensitive to any
nonidealities in the gradient waveforms. If the gradient
performance were fully characterized, then this could be
used as an additional parameter in the search algorithm.
This may require either a weighted measure of importance
for gradient distortion in the evaluation function or the
setting of a multiobjective optimization problem (11).
It can be seen that in general the pulses perform better at
higher B1 amplitude. However, the maximum B1 available
is generally limited by the RF coil, and even if this were
overcome, for instance, by using local transmit coils, ultimately the performance of RF pulses breaks down at
higher B1 amplitudes. This can be seen in Fig. 4 for the
1-mm C-FOCI pulse, which starts to exhibit side bands at
high B1, and also in Fig. 9. Such side bands could cause

Hurley et al.

image artifacts in some sequences, and where relevant,
future optimizations should use evaluation functions that
take into account the performance of the pulse well beyond the slice thickness.
CONCLUSION
We have designed inversion pulses capable of performing
well across a range of B1 amplitudes and in particular
at low RF amplitude. The search algorithm addressed
the issue of inhomogeneity in the B1 field, but not
inhomoge- neity the B0 field, or problems that exist in
the reproduc- tion of the desired gradient waveforms. The
robustness of these pulses to RF inhomogeneities has
made routine use of MPRAGE in the temporal lobes
possible on our 7-T scanner.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by the Medical Research Council,
UK. The University of Nottingham 7-T scanner was originally funded by Wellcome Trust, the Office of Science and
Technology and the Higher Education Funding Council for
England.
REFERENCES
1. Deichmann R, Good CD, Josephs O, Ashburner J, Turner R. Optimization of 3-D MP-RAGE sequences for structural brain imaging.
Neuro- image 2000;12:112-127.
2. Kim S. Quantification of relative cerebral blood flow change by flowsensitive alternating inversion recovery (FAIR) technique: applications
to functional mapping. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:293–301.
3. Silver M, Joseph RI, Hoult DI. Highly selective /2 and
pulse generation. J Magn Reson 1984;59:347–351.
4. Ordidge RJ, Wylezinska M, Hugg JW, Butterworth E, Franconi F. Frequency offset corrected inversion (FOCI) pulses for use in localized
spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:562–566.
5.
Connolly S, Nishimura D, Macovski A. Variable-rate selective
excita- tion. J Magn Reson 1988;78:440 – 458.
6. Shen J, Chen Z, Yang J. FOCI with reduced RF power requirements. J
Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:531–537.
7.
Sastry K, Goldberg D, Kendall G. Genetic algorithms: search
method- ologies. Springer; 2005.
8. Pang Y, Shen G. Improving excitation and inversion accuracy by optimized RF pulse using genetic algorithm. J Magn Reson 2007;186:86 –93.
9.
Yongbi MN, Yang Y, Frank JA, Duyn JF. Multislice perfusion
imaging in human brain, using the C-FOCI inversion pulse:
comparison with hyperbolic secant. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:1098 –
1105.
10.
Gardener AG, Gowland PA, Francis ST. Implementation of
quantitative perfusion imaging using pulsed arterial spin labeling at
ultra-high field. Magn Reson Med. In press.
11.
Deb
K. Search methodologies: introductory
tutorials in
optimization and decision support techniques. Chapter 10: Multiobjective optimi- zation.

