Understand K-Space: How Does the White Circle Form?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobP
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the formation of the white circle in k-space and its relationship to Fourier transforms. The participants clarify that the images referred to as x*ky space and kx*y space are not combined but rather represent different stages in the Fourier transformation process. The transformation from kx*ky space to x*ky space and subsequently to x*y space is emphasized, highlighting the separability property of the Fourier transform. Additionally, the varying intensity in the kx*y domain is attributed to the relative amplitude and width of sinc functions derived from the boxcar function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of k-space in MRI imaging
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms and their properties
  • Knowledge of sinc functions and boxcar functions
  • Basic concepts of image processing in the context of MRI
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fourier transforms in depth
  • Learn about the relationship between sinc functions and boxcar functions
  • Explore the role of k-space in MRI imaging techniques
  • Read "Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design" by Haacke, Brown, Thompson, and Venkatesan
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and radiologists involved in MRI research and development, as well as technologists seeking to deepen their understanding of MR physics and image processing techniques.

BobP
Messages
70
Reaction score
1
kspace.png


In this image the circle in the top left is the original. Next to it lies its K-space. We then see the result of running through k-space vertically and horizontally and then the combination of these two views.

I do not understand how the white circle can be reproduced. I though we would be adding pixel values in the two k-space data sets hence there should not be a black baground. This is obviously now what is happening. Please can someone explain how the two stripy images form the white circle. thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe that this is an image from Denis Hoa's website. You should probably give a link or a citation. It is an excellent resource.

On this slide there is only one picture of k-space, the one on the top row, middle column. The picture on the top row right column and bottom row middle column are NOT pictures of k-space. They don't really have a name, but they would be called something like x*ky space and kx*y space. You would never add them together.
 
DaleSpam said:
I believe that this is an image from Denis Hoa's website. You should probably give a link or a citation. It is an excellent resource.

On this slide there is only one picture of k-space, the one on the top row, middle column. The picture on the top row right column and bottom row middle column are NOT pictures of k-space. They don't really have a name, but they would be called something like x*ky space and kx*y space. You would never add them together.
Absolutely. here is the link if anyone wants it
http://www.revisemri.com/tutorials/what_is_k_space/

What my question meant was how would you combine the "x*ky space and kx*y space" to produce the image? Thank you
 
BobP said:
What my question meant was how would you combine the "x*ky space and kx*y space" to produce the image? Thank you
You don't combine them.

So, the Fourier transform has the property that it is separable. In keeping with my above notation k-space is kx*ky space. If you Fourier transform in the X direction then you go from kx*ky space to x*ky space. If you then apply another Fourier transform, but in the y direction then you go from x*ky space to x*y space, which is the image.
 
DaleSpam said:
You don't combine them.

So, the Fourier transform has the property that it is separable. In keeping with my above notation k-space is kx*ky space. If you Fourier transform in the X direction then you go from kx*ky space to x*ky space. If you then apply another Fourier transform, but in the y direction then you go from x*ky space to x*y space, which is the image.

OK so once we have decoded kx space --> x*ky space shouldn't we have a uniform signal at a particular x-value across the whole of y. My reasoning for this is that we know there is a y signal from ky but we don't know where it is. I don't understand why we see fancy patterns?
Thank you for your help by the way
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-10-25_18-43-44.png
    upload_2015-10-25_18-43-44.png
    42.2 KB · Views: 484
Are you familiar with the sinc function and how it Fourier transforms into a boxcar function?

If you go the other way it may be easier to understand. Start from the image domain and Fourier transform each row to go to the kx*y domain.

If the row is all zeros then it Fourier transforms to all zeros. Otherwise the row looks like a boxcar function so it Fourier transforms to a sinc function.

Different rows will have different boxcar widths and therefore different sinc functions. The "fancy pattern" is just all of those sinc functions put together.
 
DaleSpam said:
Are you familiar with the sinc function and how it Fourier transforms into a boxcar function?

If you go the other way it may be easier to understand. Start from the image domain and Fourier transform each row to go to the kx*y domain.

If the row is all zeros then it Fourier transforms to all zeros. Otherwise the row looks like a boxcar function so it Fourier transforms to a sinc function.

Different rows will have different boxcar widths and therefore different sinc functions. The "fancy pattern" is just all of those sinc functions put together.

Oh I see. So in any given row, the varying intensity on the figure displaying the kx*y domain arises because of the relative amplitude of the sinc function at the position in kx space?
 
BobP said:
Oh I see. So in any given row, the varying intensity on the figure displaying the kx*y domain arises because of the relative amplitude of the sinc function at the position in kx space?
Yes, relative amplitude and width.
 
DaleSpam said:
Yes, relative amplitude and width.
Ah. thanks so much!
 
  • #10
You are welcome. By the way, D M Higgins site is an excellent resource as is Denis Hoa's site
https://www.imaios.com/en/e-Courses/e-MRI/The-Physics-behind-it-all

If you are an engineer or physicist looking to do MRI research and development then the Haacke, Brown, Thompson, and Venkatesan book is great. If you are a radiologist or technologist looking to understand MR physics then the Dale, Brown, Semelka book is excellent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BobP

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K