sensors

Article
A New Combination of Radio-Frequency Coil Configurations
Using High-Permittivity Materials and Inductively Coupled
Structures for Ultrahigh-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Jeung-Hoon Seo 1 , Young-Seung Jo 1,2 , Chang-Hyun Oh 2, * and Jun-Young Chung 3, *

1 Neuroscience Research Institute, Gachon University, Incheon 21988, Republic of Korea

2 Department of Electronics and Information Engineering, Korea University, Sejong 30019, Republic of Korea
3 Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine, Gachon University, Incheon 21565, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected] (C.-H.O.); [email protected] (J.-Y.C.); Tel.: +82-10-5205-1353 (C.-H.O.);
+82-32-822-5361 (J.-Y.C.)

Abstract: In ultrahigh-field (UHF) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the RF power required
to excite the nuclei of the target object increases. As the strength of the main magnetic field (B0 field)
increases, the improvement of the RF transmit field (B1+ field) efficiency and receive field (B1− field)
sensitivity of radio-frequency (RF) coils is essential to reduce their specific absorption rate and
power deposition in UHF MRI. To address these problems, we previously proposed a method to
simultaneously improve the B1+ field efficiency and B1− field sensitivity of 16-leg bandpass birdcage
RF coils (BP-BC RF coils) by combining a multichannel wireless RF element (MCWE) and segmented
cylindrical high-permittivity material (scHPM) comprising 16 elements in 7.0 T MRI. In this work, we
further improved the performance of transmit/receive RF coils. A new combination of RF coil with
wireless element and HPM was proposed by comparing the BP-BC RF coil with the MCWE and the
Citation: Seo, J.-H.; Jo, Y.-S.; Oh,
scHPM proposed in the previous study and the multichannel RF coils with a birdcage RF coil-type
C.-H.; Chung, J.-Y. A New
Combination of Radio-Frequency
wireless element (BCWE) and the scHPM proposed in this study. The proposed 16-ch RF coils with
Coil Configurations Using the BCWE and scHPM provided excellent B1+ field efficiency and B1− field sensitivity improvement.
High-Permittivity Materials and
Inductively Coupled Structures for Keywords: inductively coupled wireless structure; high-permittivity material; finite-difference time
Ultrahigh-Field Magnetic Resonance domain method; multichannel RF coil; birdcage RF coil; 7.0 T MRI
Imaging. Sensors 2022, 22, 8968.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22228968

Academic Editors: Filippo Costa and

Kai Wu
1. Introduction
Advances in noninvasive 3-dimensional (3D) medical imaging such as ultrasound,
Received: 28 August 2022
computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have contributed to the
Accepted: 17 November 2022
early diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases with enhanced accuracy. Among them, MRI
Published: 19 November 2022
provides a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), as well as
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral exquisite spatial resolution. In addition, MRI has been highly utilized in clinical practice,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in as it can provide both anatomical and functional images.
published maps and institutional affil- However, over the past 20 years, the main magnetic field (B0 field) strength of MRI
iations. has remained limited to 3.0 T [1–4], and the clinical use of ultrahigh-field (UHF) MRI (B0
field: 7.0 T or higher) has been delayed despite its advantages, such as high SNR, CNR,
and spatial resolution, owing to the increased B0 field strength.
The recent approval of 7.0 T MRI scanners by the United States Food and Drug
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Administration (FDA) can greatly contribute to the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
such as Alzheimer’s disease [5–10]. In particular, 7.0 T MRI can help detect and distinguish
distributed under the terms and
subtle and potentially treatable lesions that cannot be detected or optimally evaluated at
conditions of the Creative Commons
3.0 T [11–17].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Nevertheless, 7.0 T MRI could not be widely used in clinical applications due to radio-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ frequency (RF) safety issues because RF coils require relatively high RF power higher than
4.0/). 3.0 T [18–25]. For instance, the use of the 7.0 T MRI system approved by the U.S. FDA is

Sensors 2022, 22, 8968. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22228968 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 2 of 30

subject to clinical permission to acquire only head and extremities (arms and legs) images.
The 7.0 T MRI system requires a large amount of RF energy for whole-body imaging,
causing tissue heating upon RF exposure [26–32] and increasing the specific absorption
rate (SAR) depending on the electric field (|E| field) concentration [33–42].
The improvement of RF coil performance plays an essential role in overcoming the RF
safety issues related to UHF MRI, which requires the acquisition of images using less RF
power to secure RF safety as the B0 field strength increases. For this reason, RF field (B1 field)
sensitivity and uniformity of the RF coil have become important design elements [43–47].
In the MRI system, the RF power required to excite the nuclei of the target object increases
with the B0 field strength. As the B0 field intensity increases, the B1 field sensitivity of the
RF coil used in UHF MRI becomes particularly important because greater RF power is
required to excite the proton (1 H) nuclei of the human body using RF pulses [48–58].
To improve B1 field efficiency, the simultaneous improvement of the RF transmit field
(B1 field) efficiency and receive field (B1− field) sensitivity of the RF coil is required [59–64].
+

Previous studies have been conducted to improve the B1+ field efficiency and the B1− field
sensitivity separately; however, UHF MRI requires the improvement of both the B1+ field
efficiency [47,65–69] and the B1− field sensitivity [47,70–76] simultaneously.
Therefore, a method for simultaneously improving the B1+ field efficiency and the B1−
field sensitivity was previously proposed to obtain a UHF MR image with a minimum SAR.
The proposed RF coil configuration was based on the combination of high-permittivity
materials and inductively coupled elements to improve the B1+ field efficiency and the B1−
field sensitivity, determined by electromagnetic field (EM field) simulations [47].
To explain the RF coil configurations proposed in our previous work more specifically,
the EM field simulation was performed using a bandpass-type birdcage (BP-BC) RF coil for
RF transmission and reception because BP-BC RF coils provide the most uniform and the
highest B1 field efficiency in UHF MRI [77–80]. Additional structures were proposed using
segmented cylindrical high-permittivity material (scHPM) to improve B1+ field efficiency
and a multichannel wireless element (MCWE) to improve B1− field sensitivity. The suitability
of their use in 7.0 T MRI has been confirmed in a previous study, but further investigation
is required to obtain their combination to further improve the B1+ field efficiency and the
B1− field sensitivity.
First, the disadvantage of the BP-BC RF coil combinations with scHPM and MCWE is
that unwanted frequencies can be applied to scHPM by the extremely narrow mode space
of the BP-BC RF coil in UHF MRI. The B1+ field generated around each leg of BC RF coil
is drawn according to Maxwell’s right-hand rule. Each leg of the BC RF coil is driven by
a sinusoidal current, but the peak current of each successive leg is delayed by 360◦ /16
(number of legs) = 22.5◦ . This is a homogeneous mode of the BC RF coil. In the resonance
spectrum (in S-parameters) of the BC RF coil, the BC RF coil has various modes equal to
half the number of legs of the BC RF coil, except for the end-ring modes. However, the
modes of these BC RF coils have an extremely narrow mode space in the UHF MRI. For
this reason, a decrease in B1+ field efficiency was expected; thus, the BP-BC RF coil used
as the transmit/receive (Tx/Rx) RF coil was replaced with the 16 channel (16-ch) RF coil.
We also improved the B1− field sensitivity of the 16-element MCWE using large-volume BC
RF coils as the wireless element (WE) owing to an increase in the inductively coupled area.
The dimensions of the MCWE and scHPM were defined as the size between the legs of the
BP-BC RF coil. The B1 field distribution of the BP-BC RF coil is generated in the vertical
direction of the closed loop between the legs. If the MCWE and scHPM dimensions exceed
the size between the legs of the BP-BC RF coil, the RF wave may be distorted horizontally,
and signal sensitivity may be reduced, so the dimensions and number of MCWE and
scHPM were set to a size that can minimize RF wave distortion.
Therefore, in this study, we propose a new combination of RF coil configuration that
provides superior B1+ field efficiency and B1− field sensitivity at 7.0 T MRI compared to the
previously proposed combinations of the scHPM and the MCWE. To this end, EM field
simulations were performed by alternating the role of the BP-BC RF coil used as a Tx/Rx
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 3 of 30

RF coil and the MCWE used as a WE to improve B1− field sensitivity, except for scHPM
(which has already been verified to improve B1+ field efficiency).
Moreover, we compared the 16-ch RF coil with or without the BCWE (w/wo-BCWE) and
the BP-BC RF coil with or without the MCWE (w/wo-MCWE) using EM field simulations.
Thus, the optimal configuration of the BP-BC RF coil with MCWE and scHPM combinations
(BP-BC RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-MCWE) and the 16-ch RF coil with BCWE and scHPM
combinations (16-ch RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-BCWE) was identified with enhanced B1+ field
efficiency and B1− field sensitivity. Through the alternating use of the Tx/Rx RF coil and the
WE, it was possible to determine which cases provided further improved B1+ field efficiency
and B1− field sensitivity. The performance of each RF coil combination was compared
using EM field analysis under unnormalized (|B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E| fields) and normalized
(|B1+ | field and SAR) conditions. The EM field simulations confirmed that the advanced
form of the 16-ch RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-BCWE configuration provided enhanced B1+ field
efficiency and B1− field sensitivity compared to the BP-BC RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-MCWE
at 7.0 T.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. EM Field Simulation Setup
To evaluate the performance of the BP-BC RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-MCWE configu-
ration and the 16-ch RF coil + scHPM – w/wo-BCWE configuration, 3D modeling and EM
field calculations were performed using the FDTD method based on xFDTD simulation
software version 6.6 (Remcom, Inc., State College, PA, USA) [81].
The components of the EM field simulation model were divided into three types: the
Tx/Rx RF coil (BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil) for RF transmission and reception, the
WE (MCWE and BCWE) for B1− field sensitivity improvement, and the scHPM for B1+ field
efficiency improvement.
As Tx/Rx RF coils for human head MR imaging, the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF
coil were designed to have the same diameter (330 mm) and length (150 mm). The BP-BC
RF coil consists of 16 legs with a BP-BC type structural design, and the 16-ch RF coil consists
of 16 surface elements. The BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil were operated in the Tx/Rx
mode, and they provided uniform RF distribution to the conductor using current sources
(1 A) with a sinusoidal RF pulse. Current RF sources are used assuming an ideal current
distribution, and RF coupling between RF elements is neglected [82–90]. The BP-BC RF coil
consists of 16 legs with 80 current RF sources, and the 16-ch RF coil consists of 128 current
RF sources (8 current RF sources per single channel). For ideal current driving condition
through the micro-strip line of the transmission RF coil, multiple current RF sources were
applied instead of the capacitors used for tuning and matching the RF coil. In addition, the
micro-stripe lines constituting the RF coil were composed of a perfect electric conductor
(PEC) instead of copper. Where the current intensity and geometrical phase of RF coils
are defined at each current driving point, the EM field distribution can be calculated in an
actual MRI experiment assuming target resonance RF frequency tuning and impedance
matching with a tuning and matching capacitor. For B1− field sensitivity improvement, the
WE was designed and compared to the MCWE composed of 16 elements and the BCWE
composed of the BP-BC element. The dimensions of the MCWE were 280 mm × 150 mm
(diameter × length), and it consists of 16 elements, each with dimensions of 40 mm × 150
mm, which were placed between the legs of the BP-BC RF coil. The dimensions of the
BCWE were identical to those of the MCWE, and the BCWE was designed with a 16-leg
BP-BC structure. The MCWE and the BCWE were tuned to 300 MHz using only passive
elements without RF sources. The MCWE was configured with a 6.26 pF tuning capacitor,
and the BCWE was configured with a 3.84 pF tuning capacitor. All wireless elements used
in MCWE were tuned to a frequency of 300 MHz using tuning capacitors by applying an
RF source, and only the RF source was removed. BCWE, like MCWE, was used by tuning
to a frequency of 300 MHz in the presence of an RF source and then removing only the RF
source. Since each capacitor applied to MCWE and BCWE was used by applying geometric
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 4 of 30

phase information, the MCWE and BCWE were operated under circular polarization mode.
For EM field simulations under ideal conditions, the Tx/Rx RF coils and WEs were made
from perfect electric conductors.
The scHPM consists of a segmented cylinder with an outer diameter of 315 mm, an
inner diameter of 295 mm, and a length of 150 mm. The scHPM was divided into 16
elements of the same size as that of the MCWE. The relative permittivity and loss tangent
of the scHPM were 300 and 0.05, respectively. The width of each RF coil element and the
scHPM was set to 40 mm so that the MCWE could be placed using the gap between the legs
of the BP-BC RF coil. The scHPM was also located between the Tx/Rx RF coil and the WE.

2.2. EM Field Analysis

To compare the EM field sensitivities and distributions generated by RF coil configu-
rations under ideal conditions, an oil-based cylindrical phantom model with a diameter
of 224 mm and a length of 150 mm was used. To analyze the EM field effects of RF coil
configurations on the human body, EM field simulations were performed using a human
head model (a HIFI head model with 17 tissue characteristics provided by Remcom, Inc.,
State College, PA, USA).
In general, the uniform phantoms used in the EM field simulation of MRI mainly use
oil-based, water-based, and average phantoms (mean value of dielectric properties with
white matter and gray matter in the human head). In the 7.0 T MRI simulation, the oil-
based phantom consists primarily of dielectric properties with a conductivity 0 S·m−1 and
a permittivity of 4. Furthermore, the water-based phantom using distilled water consists
of dielectric properties with a conductivity 5 × 10−5 S·m−1 and a permittivity of 76.7.
Moreover, the average phantom uses the average value of conductivity and permittivity of
the white matter and gray matter in the human brain at a target frequency.
In this study, an oil-based cylindrical phantom was used, and EM field simulation
using an oil-based cylindrical phantom was performed to evaluate the quantitative perfor-
mance of the RF coil and verify the electromagnetic field distribution under ideal conditions.
This was to minimize inhomogeneities, such as standing wave effects with shortened RF
wavelength lengths in UHF MRI, distortions in peripheral region of the phantom due to
high dielectric properties, and distortions of RF transmission and reception by shifted
B1+ /B1− fields [91,92].
The EM field simulation calculations of the oil-based cylindrical phantom were per-
formed for a total of 26,292,960 voxels (372 × 372 × 190 cells), while the EM field simulation
calculations of the human head model were performed for a total of 66,022,560 voxels
(522 × 372 × 340 cells). The voxel resolution of the EM field simulations was set to 1 mm3 .
For numerical analysis, EM field sensitivities and distributions composed of complex data
matrices were analyzed in terms of the |B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E| fields, and the SAR map.
The FDTD complex data matrices of the EM field results were computed using MATLAB
(version 2020a, Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) for data analysis of the |B1+ |, |B1− |,
and |E| fields, and the SAR map.
EM field calculations were categorized into two groups: the unnormalized (|B1+ |,
|B1− |, and |E| fields) and normalized (|B1+ | field and SAR map) cases. In the unnormal-
ized case, we compared the EM field sensitivity changes for each combination of the Tx/Rx
RF coil with the WE and the scHPM under the same conditions, and the normalized case
was used to predict the actual experiments when a 90◦ (π/2) RF pulse was induced. The
total current applied to two types of RF coils in unnormalized condition was 1 A, and the
equal current was applied to the combination of the two types of RF coils, as it was directly
applied to the PEC without a capacitor at the position of the capacitor used to manufacture
the actual RF coil. This method was applied to compare two types of RF coils under equal
input RF power conditions, and the EM field generated by the equal amount of current
applied to the conductor could be analyzed.
The unnormalized EM fields were compared using sensitivity-related factors and
SD value-related factors as the relative differences, change rates, and capacity rates. The
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 5 of 30

relative sensitivity differences and relative standard deviation (SD) value differences were
calculated by comparing the 16-ch RF coil combination and the BP-BC RF coil combination.
The sensitivity change ratio and SD value change ratio were calculated by comparing the
Tx/Rx RF coil alone result with the result of applying the WE and scHPM combinations.
The capacity rate was used as a result of dividing the maximum EM field sensitivity value
or the SD value of the 16-ch RF coil combinations by the maximum EM field sensitivity
value or the SD value of the BP-BC RF coil combinations. The capability rate was a reference
indicating how much the 16-ch RF coil combinations were relatively improved in terms of
signal sensitivity and SD value compared to the BP-BC RF coil combination.
To calculate the normalized EM field, the efficiency of the unnormalized |B1+ | field
generated by the RF coil configurations was measured at the 3D center point values of
the RF coil, and the calculated normalization coefficient (Norm-COEF) was applied to the
unnormalized EM field. Specifically, the 3D center point values of the RF coil configurations
in the normalized |B1+ | field maps were calculated by assuming a flip angle of π/2; thus,
the RF pulse was normalized at 1.957 µT [93,94]. By applying this calculated Norm-COEF
to the unnormalized |B1+ | field and the SAR map, normalized |B1+ | field and SAR map
analyses were performed assuming an actual 7.0 T MRI experiment.
The |B1 | field is composed of two circularly polarized components: the |B1+ | and
|B1 | fields. The components of the |B1+ | and |B1− | fields are defined as B1+ and B1− in the
−

rotating frame, respectively. B1+ and B1− can be defined as follows:

(B1x + iB1y ) (B1x − iB1y )

B1+ = √ , B1− = √
2 2

Here, B1x and B1y are the B1 components along the x- and y-axes, respectively.
The values of the unnormalized SAR map can be calculated as follows:

σ 2 dT
SAR(r ) = E ∝ ,
2ρ dt

where E2 = E·E∗ denotes the squared magnitude of the induced E field, ρ = ρ(r ) is the
mass density (kg/m3 ), and T is the temperature (◦ K).
The whole-averaged SAR (mean SAR) and maximum SAR (max SAR) values were
compared using the unaveraged SAR instead of the averaged SAR (1 g averaged SAR and
10 g averaged SAR) in normalized SAR maps. The mean SAR and max SAR values were
calculated using mean and maximum values of unaveraged SAR in the entire tissue of
the human head model, respectively. In addition, the unaveraged SAR was calculated by
applying only the unaveraged SAR value of the entire human tissue region, excluding the
massless region and the free space part of the human head model used.

3. Results and Discussion

To verify the effects of the scHPM and the WE on the EM field generated by the BP-BC
RF coil, we performed EM field simulations (Figure 1) using the BP-BC RF coil and the
16-ch RF coil with the scHPM (w-scHPM) or without the scHPM (wo-scHPM). Next, to
evaluate the impact of the simultaneous use of the WE and the scHPM, we compared the
above configurations of the BP-BC RF coil with the WE (w-WE) or without the WE (wo-WE).
The EM field results were simulated under unnormalized (Figures 2–4) and normalized
(Figures 5 and 6) conditions.
Sensors 2022,
Sensors 2022, 22,
22, 8968
8968 66 of 31
of 30

Figure
Figure 1. Configurations of
1. Configurations of Tx/Rx
Tx/Rx RFRF coil
coil combinations
combinations for for EM
EM field
field simulations
simulations using
using the
the oil-based
oil-based
cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil –
cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo- wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
(b,j)
MCWE; BP-BC RFBP-BC
(b,j) w-scHPM
coil – RF – wo-MCWE;
coil – w-scHPM (c,k) 16-ch(c,k)
– wo-MCWE; RF coil – wo-scHPM
16-ch – wo-BCWE;
RF coil – wo-scHPM (d,j) 16-ch
– wo-BCWE;
RF
(d,j)coil – w-scHPM
16-ch wo-BCWE;
RF coil – –w-scHPM (e,m) BP-BC
– wo-BCWE; (e,m) coil – wo-scHPM
RFBP-BC – w-MCWE;
RF coil – wo-scHPM (f,l) BP-BC
– w-MCWE; RFBP-BC
(f,l) coil –
RF coil – w-scHPM
w-scHPM – w-MCWE; – w-MCWE; (g,o)
(g,o) 16-ch RF 16-ch
coil – RF coil – wo-scHPM
wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; – w-BCWE; (h,p)
(h,p) 16-ch RF 16-ch
coil – RF coil – w-–
w-scHPM
scHPM – w-BCWE.
w-BCWE.
Figure 1 shows the configurations of the numerical EM field simulation models. The
EM field simulation models for the oil-based cylindrical phantom wo-WE involved the
BP-BC RF coil alone (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE) (Figure 1a), the BP-BC RF
coil with the scHPM (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE) (Figure 1b), the 16-ch RF coil
alone (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE) (Figure 1c), and the 16-ch RF coil with the
scHPM (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE) (Figure 1d), while those w-WE involved the
BP-BC RF coil with the WE (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE) (Figure 1e), the BP-BC
RF coil with the scHPM and the WE (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE) (Figure 1f), the
16-ch RF coil with the WE (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE) (Figure 1g), and the 16-ch
RF coil with the scHPM and the WE (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE) (Figure 1h).
Sensors
Sensors2022,
2022,22,
22,8968
8968 7 7ofof31
30

Unnormalized|B
Figure2.2.Unnormalized
Figure |B1+||field
fielddistributions
distributionsusing
usingthe
theoil-based
oil-basedcylindrical
cylindricalphantom
phantom(a–h)
(a–h)and
and
human head model
human model (i–p):
(i–p):(a,i)
(a,i)BP-BC
BP-BCRFRF coil – wo-scHPM
coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (b,j) (b,j)
BP-BC RF coil
BP-BC w-scHPM
RF– coil – w-
– wo-MCWE;
scHPM (c,k) 16-ch
– wo-MCWE; RF16-ch
(c,k) coil –RFwo-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
coil – wo-scHPM (d,j) 16-ch(d,j)
– wo-BCWE; RF coil
16-ch– w-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
RF coil – w-scHPM –
wo-BCWE;
(e,m) BP-BC(e,m) BP-BC
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(f,l) BP-BC(f,l) BP-BC
RF coil RF coil – –w-scHPM
– w-scHPM w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch
(g,o) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-BCWE;– (h,p)
w-BCWE;
16-ch(h,p) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil ––w-scHPM
– w-scHPM w-BCWE.– w-BCWE.
The EM fields were calculated numerically, and the sensitivity values were compared
using the 3D center point values of the RF coil, as shown in Figure 1. For the quantitative
analysis of the numerically calculated EM fields, we compared the values for the |B1+ |,
|B1− |, and |E| fields under the unnormalized condition. The 3D center point values (or
max values) and standard deviation (SD) values for the unnormalized |B1+ |, |B1− |, and
|E| field sensitivities are shown in Table 1. We validated the Tx/Rx configurations by
comparing the EM field sensitivities under the unnormalized conditions and compared the
oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model.
Sensors
Sensors 2022,
2022, 22,
22, 8968
8968 8 8ofof31
30

Figure 3.
Figure Unnormalized |B
3. Unnormalized |B1−||field
fielddistributions
distributionsusing
usingthe
theoil-based
oil-basedcylindrical
cylindricalphantom
phantom(a–h)
(a–h)and
and
human
human head model
model(i–p):
(i–p):(a,i)
(a,i)BP-BC
BP-BCRFRF coil
coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (b,j) (b,j)
BP-BC BP-BC RF– w-scHPM
RF coil coil – w-
scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (c,k)
(c,k) 16-ch RF16-ch
coil –RF coil – wo-scHPM
wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE;– wo-BCWE;
(d,j) 16-ch(d,j) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – –w-scHPM
– w-scHPM wo-BCWE; –
wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
(e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-BCWE;–(h,p)w-BCWE;
16-ch(h,p) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil ––w-scHPM
– w-scHPM w-BCWE.– w-BCWE.
In the presence of the WE, not only the unnormalized |B1− | field improvement but
also the unnormalized |B1+ | field improvement was achieved, and in the 16-ch RF coil
configuration with the BCWE, the unnormalized with the field improvement effect was
much higher than that of the BP-BC RF coil configuration with the MCWE. This means
that the proposed BCWE structure provided higher efficiency than the MCWE structure. In
addition, the 16-ch RF coil configuration using scHPM showed an excellent |B1+ | efficiency
improvement effect compared to the BP-BC RF coil configuration using scHPM. This
means that scHPM applied to 16-ch RF coils can improve |B1+ | efficiency more effectively
(Figure 2d,l).
Sensors
Sensors2022,
2022,22,
22,8968
8968 9 9ofof31
30

Unnormalized|E|
Figure4.4. Unnormalized
Figure |E|field
fielddistributions
distributionsusing
usingthe
theoil-based
oil-basedcylindrical
cylindricalphantom
phantom(a–h)
(a–h)and
and
human head
human head model
model (i–p):
(i–p):(a,i)
(a,i)BP-BC
BP-BCRFRF coil – wo-scHPM
coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (b,j) (b,j)
BP-BC RF coil
BP-BC w-scHPM
RF– coil – w-
– wo-MCWE;
scHPM (c,k) 16-ch
– wo-MCWE; RF16-ch
(c,k) coil –RFwo-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
coil – wo-scHPM (d,j) 16-ch(d,j)
– wo-BCWE; RF coil
16-ch – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
RF coil – w-scHPM –
wo-BCWE;
(e,m) BP-BC (e,m) BP-BC
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(f,l) BP-BC(f,l)
RF BP-BC RF coil – –w-scHPM
coil – w-scHPM w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch
(g,o) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-BCWE;– (h,p)
w-BCWE;
16-ch(h,p) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – –w-scHPM
– w-scHPM w-BCWE.– w-BCWE.
The unnormalized EM field simulation results were analyzed by calculating the
Figure 1 shows the configurations of the numerical EM field simulation models. The
unnormalized EM field sensitivity and SD values (listed in Table 1) of each Tx/Rx RF
EM field simulation models for the oil-based cylindrical phantom wo-WE involved the BP-
coil configuration. To evaluate their |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity, the
BC RF coil alone (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE) (Figure 1a), the BP-BC RF coil
relative difference between the maximum sensitivities was calculated (listed in Table 1).
with the scHPM
The relative (BP-BCdifference
sensitivity RF coil –was
w-scHPM
compared– wo-MCWE)
between the (Figure
BP-BC1b),
RF the
coil 16-ch
and theRF16-ch
coil
alone
RF coil configurations (Case 1: comparing the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE the
(16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE) (Figure 1c), and the 16-ch RF coil with and
scHPM
the 16-ch(16-ch RF–coil
RF coil – w-scHPM
wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE)
– wo-BCWE; Case 2:(Figure 1d), while
comparing those
the BP-BC RFw-WE
coil – involved
w-scHPM
the BP-BC RFand
– wo-MCWE coilthe
with the RF
16-ch WEcoil
(BP-BC RF coil –– wo-BCWE;
– w-scHPM wo-scHPMCase – w-MCWE) (Figure
3: comparing the1e), the
BP-BC
BP-BC
RF coilRF – coil with the–scHPM
wo-scHPM w-MCWE and and
the WE
the (BP-BC
16-ch RF RFcoil
coil–– wo-scHPM
w-scHPM – –w-MCWE)
w-BCWE;(Figure
Case 4:
1f), the 16-ch RF coil with the WE (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM
comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-BCWE) (Figure 1g), and–
– w-scHPM
the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the WE (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE) (Fig-
w-BCWE).
ure 1h).
In addition, to define the Tx/Rx RF coil combination that can provide optimal perfor-
manceTheinEM fields
terms of were calculated
sensitivity and SDnumerically, and(listed
change ratios the sensitivity
in Tablesvalues were
2 and 3), wecompared
compared
using
Tx/Rxthe RF3D center
coils point values
– wo-scHPM of thewith
– wo-WE RF coil,
Tx/Rxas shown
RF coilin Figure 1. For
– wo-scHPM the quantitative
– w-WE, Tx/Rx RF
analysis of the numerically
coil – w-scHPM – wo-WE, and calculated
Tx/Rx RF EM fields,
coil we compared
– w-scHPM – w-WE.the values for the |B |,
|B |, and |E| fields under the unnormalized condition. The 3D center point values (or
Sensors
Sensors2022,
2022,22,
22,8968
8968 21 10
ofof3130

Normalized|B
Figure5.5.Normalized
Figure |B1+
| |field
fielddistributions
distributionsusing
usingthe
theoil-based
oil-basedcylindrical
cylindricalphantom
phantom(a–h)
(a–h)and
and
humanhead
human head model (i–p):
(i–p): (a,i)
(a,i)BP-BC
BP-BCRF RFcoil – wo-scHPM
coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (b,j)(b,j)
BP-BC RF coil
BP-BC w-scHPM
RF–coil – w-
– wo-MCWE;
scHPM (c,k) 16-ch
– wo-MCWE; (c,k)RF16-ch wo-scHPM
coil –RF – wo-BCWE;
coil – wo-scHPM (d,j) 16-ch
– wo-BCWE; RF 16-ch
(d,j) w-scHPM
coil – RF – wo-BCWE;
coil – w-scHPM –
wo-BCWE;
(e,m) BP-BC (e,m)
RF BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(f,l) BP-BC(f,l)
RF BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch
(g,o) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – wo-scHPM
– wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; – w-BCWE;
(h,p) 16-ch(h,p) 16-ch
RF coil RF coil – –w-scHPM
– w-scHPM w-BCWE.– w-BCWE.
Figure 2 (see also Figures S1 and S2) shows the unnormalized |B1+ | field distribution
In the normalized |B | field results using oil-based cylindrical phantom and human
results using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the unnor-
head models,+the center values of the BP-BC RF coil+and the 16-ch RF coil were both nor-
malized |B1 | field results, the unnormalized |B1 | field distribution provided higher
malized to values when a 90° RF pulse was applied. For the comparison of uniformity of
efficiency compared to the 16-ch RF coil alone. In particular, the sensitivity-related factors
16-ch RF coil combinations and BP-BC RF coil combinations, the mean value, SD value,
in all EM fields showed similar trends (listed in Tables 1–3).
and CV of the normalized |B | field were evaluated as shown in+ Figure 5 and Table 6.
The relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1 | field were evaluated
The 16-ch RF coil configurations produced high unnormalized |B | field efficiency (as
using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and the human head model. In the oil-based
listed in Table 5) without degrading the uniformity of the normalized |B | field distribu-
cylindrical phantom results, the relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1+ |
tion compared
field betweentothe
theBP-BC
BP-BCRF RF coil
coil configurations
and the 16-ch (as
RF listed in Table 6). These
coil configurations wereresults were
calculated
equally observed in the
to be approximately human
3.004 head
times, model
8.048 results,
times, 9.894and it was
times, andconfirmed
7.072 times,that the 16-ch
respectively,
RF coil configuration provided a more sensitive and uniform normalized
under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 2a,c), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM |B | field dis-
tribution.
(Figure 2e,g), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2f,h) conditions. In the human head model
results, the relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1+ | field between the
BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately
0.942 times, 1.754 times, 1.746 times, and 3.056 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-
 Human head model
w-WE 33.745 33.256 35.866 34.429

The SAR maps after the application of the Norm-COEFs were calculated, as shown
in Figure 6 (also see Figures S9 and S10) and Table 7. Since the unnormalized SAR maps
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 involve the SAR results without the consideration of the transmission RF power, more 11 of 30
quantitative SAR maps were analyzed by calculating the normalized SAR maps by apply-
ing a 90° RF pulse. The mean and max SAR values are listed in Table 7. In the SAR maps
ofscHPM
the BP-BC RF2i,k),
(Figure coil and the 16-ch RF coil
wo-WE/w-scHPM configurations,
(Figure it was not possible
2j,l), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figureto confirm
2m,o), and
the rapid change in the SAR map distribution,
w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2n,p) conditions. as shown in Figure 6.

NormalizedSAR
Figure6.6.Normalized
Figure SARmaps
mapsconstructed
constructedusing
usingNorm-COEF
Norm-COEFvalues:values:(a)(a)BP-BC
BP-BCRF RFcoil wo-
coil– –wo-
scHPM– –wo-MCWE;
scHPM wo-MCWE;(b)(b) BP-BC
BP-BC RFRF
coilcoil – w-scHPM
– w-scHPM – wo-MCWE;
– wo-MCWE; (c) 16-ch
(c) 16-ch RF –coil
RF coil – wo-scHPM
wo-scHPM – wo- –
BCWE;
wo-BCWE;(d) 16-ch RF coil
(d) 16-ch RF– coil
w-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
– w-scHPM (e) BP-BC
– wo-BCWE; RF coil RF
(e) BP-BC – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE;
coil – wo-scHPM (f) BP-
– w-MCWE;
BC
(f) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h) 16-ch RF –coil
RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h) 16-ch RF coil w- –
scHPM – w-BCWE.
w-scHPM – w-BCWE.

The sensitivity change ratios of the unnormalized |B1+ | field using the oil-based cylindri-
cal phantom were calculated as approximately 1.178 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations
comparing Figures 2a and 2b), 1.150 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing Fig-
ures 2a and 2e), 1.794 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2a and 2f),
3.156 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2d), 3.787 times (for
16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2g), and 4.224 times (for 16-ch RF coil
configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2h). In the human head model results, the sensitivity
change ratios of the unnormalized |B1+ | field were calculated as approximately 1.036 times
(for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2i and 2j), 1.083 times (for BP-BC RF
coil configurations comparing Figures 2i and 2m), 1.328 times (for BP-BC RF coil configura-
tions comparing Figures 2i and 2n), 1.928 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing
Figures 2k and 2l), 2.007 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2k and 2o),
and 4.309 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2k and 2p).
The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |B1+ | field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom were calculated as 267.909% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil − w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 329.368% (comparing the BP-
BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
235.423% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil
– w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |B1+ | field
using the human head model were calculated as 186.132% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 185.282% (comparing
the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE),
and 324.391% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 12 of 30

Table 1. Maximum and SD values of unnormalized EM field simulation results (|B1+ |, |B1− |, and
|E| fields) using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model.

BP-BC RF BP-BC RF 16-ch RF

16-ch RF Coil
Coil Coil Coil
w-scHPM
wo-scHPM w-scHPM wo-scHPM
Max values of the unnormalized |B1+ | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.247 0.291 0.742 2.342
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.284 0.443 2.810 3.133
wo-WE 0.588 0.609 0.554 1.068
Human head model
w-WE 0.637 0.781 1.112 2.387
SD values of the unnormalized |B1+ | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.009
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.003 0.011 0.058 0.071
wo-WE 0.093 0.094 0.086 0.165
Human head model
w-WE 0.100 0.120 0.173 0.371
Max values of the unnormalized |B1− | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.050 0.071 0.156 0.537
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.058 0.128 0.659 0.784
wo-WE 0.271 0.273 0.256 0.487
Human head model
w-WE 0.292 0.346 0.508 1.081
SD values of the unnormalized |B1− | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.014 0.016 0.041 0.137
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.014 0.025 0.154 0.170
wo-WE 0.048 0.049 0.046 0.088
Human head model
w-WE 0.052 0.060 0.091 0.191
Max values of the unnormalized |E| field (V/m)
wo-WE 260.257 202.869 644.104 2163.678
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 224.388 296.424 1998.820 1900.393
wo-WE 727.420 711.303 603.219 1186.803
Human head model
w-WE 740.012 918.380 1230.528 2725.248
SD values of the unnormalized |E| field (V/m)
wo-WE 60.182 44.438 154.113 516.632
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 50.242 64.141 463.342 422.434
wo-WE 62.877 63.044 57.199 110.145
Human head model
w-WE 66.373 79.834 115.689 246.113

The sensitivity-related factors of the unnormalized |B1+ | field results showed remark-
ably similar tendencies, indicating improved sensitivity in the 16-ch RF coil configurations
compared to the BP-BC RF coil configurations. In particular, the sensitivity change ratio
and the sensitivity capability rate showed extremely similar tendencies.
The SD value relative differences in the unnormalized |B1+ | field were evaluated us-
ing the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the relative sensitivity differences between the BP-BC RF coil and the
16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately 1.750 times, 2.250 times,
19.333 times, and 6.455 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 2a,c), wo-WE/w-
scHPM (Figure 2b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 2e,g), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2f,h)
conditions. In the human head model results, the relative SD value differences in the unnor-
malized |B1 | field between the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations were cal-
culated to be approximately 0.925 times, 1.755 times, 1.730 times, and 3.092 times, respectively,
under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 2i,k), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2j,l), w-WE/wo-scHPM
(Figure 2m,o), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 2n,p) conditions.
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 13 of 30

Table 2. Unnormalized EM field (|B1 |, |B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E| fields) sensitivity change ratios for
scHPM – wo-WE, w-WE, and w-scHPM – w-WE compared to the Tx/Rx RF coil alone using oil-based
cylindrical phantom and human head model.

BP-BC RF 16-ch RF
Coil Coil
Capability Rate
w-scHPM w-scHPM
– wo-WE – wo-WE
Sensitivity change ratio of the unnormalized |B1+ | field (%)
w-scHPM 117.814 315.633 267.909
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 114.980 378.706 329.368
phantom
w-scHPM –
132.823 430.866 324.391
w-WE
w-scHPM 103.571 192.780 186.132
Human head model w-WE 108.333 200.722 182.282
w-scHPM –
132.823 430.866 324.391
w-WE
Sensitivity change ratio of the unnormalized |B1− | field (%)
w-scHPM 142.000 344.231 242.146
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 116.000 422.436 364.169
phantom
w-scHPM –
256.000 502.564 196.314
w-WE
w-scHPM 100.738 190.234 188.841
Human head model w-WE 107.749 198.438 184.166
w-scHPM –
127.675 422.266 330.734
w-WE
Sensitivity change ratio of the unnormalized |E| field (%)
w-scHPM 77.950 335.921 430.947
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 86.218 310.326 359.932
phantom
w-scHPM –
113.897 295.044 259.046
w-WE
w-scHPM 97.784 196.745 201.203
Human head model w-WE 101.731 203.994 200.522
w-scHPM –
126.252 451.784 357.844
w-WE

The SD value change ratios of the unnormalized |B1+ | field using the oil-based cylindri-
cal phantom were calculated as approximately 1.000 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations
comparing Figures 2a and 2b), 0.750 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing
Figures 2a and 2e), 2.750 times (for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2a and 2f),
1.286 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2d), 8.286 times (for
16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2g), and 10.143 times (for 16-ch RF coil
configurations comparing Figures 2c and 2h). In the human head model results, the SD value
change ratios of the unnormalized |B1+ |field were calculated as approximately 1.011 times
(for BP-BC RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2i and 2j), 1.075 times (for BP-BC RF
coil configurations comparing Figures 2i and 2m), 1.290 times (for BP-BC RF coil configura-
tions comparing Figures 2i and 2n), 1.919 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing
Figures 2k and 2l), 2.012 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2k and 2o),
and 4.314 times (for 16-ch RF coil configurations comparing Figures 2k and 2p).
The SD value capability rates of the unnormalized |B1+ | field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom were calculated as 128.571% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 1104.762% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
368.312% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates using the human head model were
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 14 of 30

calculated as 189.819% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the
16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 187.081% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
– w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and 334.331% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).

Table 3. SD change ratios of the unnormalized EM field (|B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E| fields) for scHPM
– wo-WE, w-WE, and scHPM – w-WE compared to the Tx/Rx RF coil alone using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom and human head model.

BP-BC RF 16-ch RF
Coil Coil
Capability Rate
w-scHPM w-scHPM
– wo-WE – wo-WE
SD change ratio of the unnormalized |B1+ | field (%)
w-scHPM 100.000 128.571 128.571
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 75.000 828.571 1104.762
phantom
w-scHPM –
275.000 1014.286 368.831
w-WE
w-scHPM 101.075 191.861 189.819
Human head model w-WE 107.527 201.163 187.081
w-scHPM –
129.032 431.395 334.331
w-WE
SD change ratio of the unnormalized |B1− | field (%)
w-scHPM 114.286 334.146 292.378
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 100.000 375.601 375.610
phantom
w-scHPM –
178.571 414.634 232.195
w-WE
w-scHPM 102.083 191.304 187.400
Human head model w-WE 108.333 197.826 182.609
w-scHPM –
125.000 415.217 332.174
w-WE
SD change ratio of the unnormalized |E| field (%)
w-scHPM 73.839 335.229 453.999
Oil-based cylindrical
w-WE 83.484 300.650 360.129
phantom
w-scHPM –
106.579 274.106 257.186
w-WE
w-scHPM 100.266 192.566 192.056
Human head model w-WE 105.556 202.258 191.606
w-scHPM –
126.968 430.279 338.888
w-WE

As can be seen from the unnormalized |B1+ | field results, the sensitivity value, sensi-
tivity change ratio, and SD value change ratio of the unnormalized |B1+ | field were greatly
influenced by Tx/Rx RF coil configurations with the scHPM and the WE. In terms of the
SD value change ratio of the unnormalized |B1+ | field, the SD value change ratio of the
16-ch RF coil alone – wo-BCWE compared with those of 16-ch RF coil + scHPM, the 16-ch
RF coil alone – w-BCWE, and the 16-ch RF coil + scHPM – w-BCWE using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom showed very contradictory results compared to the SD value change
ratios of other EM fields. As shown in Figure 2, in the unnormalized |B1+ | field results, the
relative differences between the oil-based cylindrical phantom and the human head model
results proved that the scHPM w-BCWE applied to the 16-ch RF coil was more sensitive
to dielectric properties. The extremely different SD value change ratio between the |B1+ |
field results of the oil-based cylindrical phantom and the human head model was that the
oil-based cylindrical phantom was relatively closer to the 16-RF coil configuration applied
scHPM and BCWE than the human head model. In addition, compared to the human head
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 15 of 30

model, there was a large difference in the rate of change in SD values due to the dielectric
properties of the oil-based phantom. However, in the 16-ch RF coil configurations, the
SD values of the unnormalized |B1+ | fields changed relatively significantly, while the SD
values of unnormalized |B1− | and |E| fields showed a change similar to the sensitivity
change ratio of the unnormalized |B1− | and |E| field.
However, unlike the sensitivity-related factors of the unnormalized |B1+ | field results,
the SD value-related factors of the unnormalized |B1+ | field results increased dramatically
due to the WE in the oil-based cylindrical phantom results. This rapid increase in the SD
value-related factors was expected to intensify due to the BCWE, which consists of volume
shapes that adhere to the cylindrical phantom, and its low dielectric properties. On the
other hand, in the human head model results, it was confirmed that the sensitivity-related
and SD value-related factors of the unnormalized |B1+ | field showed a similar tendency. A
sharp increase in the SD value of the BCWE was observed using the oil-based cylindrical
phantom model, but a sharp change in the SD value-related factors could not be observed
in the human head model. Based on the oil-based cylindrical phantom results, a rapid
change in the SD value-related factors was observed in the 16-ch RF coil configuration with
the BCWE, but the advantage of the sensitivity-related factors increased in terms of RF
power. Thus, it is worth recommending the use of the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE
and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.
Figure 3 (see also Figures S3 and S4) shows the unnormalized |B1− | field distribu-
tion results using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. From the
unnormalized |B1− | field results shown in Figure 3, the combinations of w-scHPM and
wo/w-BCWE (Figure 3d–h) allowed us to observe extreme changes in |B1− | field sensitivity
in the periphery region of the oil-based cylindrical phantom, as it was located close enough
to the BCWE and the scHPM. Similar abnormal unnormalized |B1− | field patterns in the
periphery region were not observed in the human head model results, but the unnormal-
ized |B1− | field penetration into the deep region of the human head model was confirmed.
The unnormalized |B1− | field distribution also provided higher sensitivity compared to
the 16-ch RF coil alone, depending on how WE and scHPM combinations were applied.
The relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1− | field were evaluated
using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1− | field between
the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately
3.120 times, 7.563 times, 11.362 times, and 6.125 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-
scHPM (Figure 3a,c), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3e,g), and
w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3f,h) conditions. In the human head model results, the relative
sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |B1− | field between the BP-BC RF coil and
the 16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately 0.945 times, 1.784
times, 1.740 times, and 3.124 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3i,k),
wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3j,l), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3m,o), and w-WE/w-scHPM
(Figure 3n,p) conditions.
The sensitivity change ratios of the unnormalized |B1− | field using the oil-based cylin-
drical phantom were calculated as approximately 1.420 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 3a and 3b), 1.160 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 3a and 3e), 2.560 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3a and 3f),
3.442 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3d), 4.224 times (16-
ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3g), and 5.026 times (16-ch RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3h). In the human head model results, the sensi-
tivity change ratios of the unnormalized |B1− | field were calculated as approximately 1.007 times
(BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3i and 3j), 1.077 times (BP-BC RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 3i and 3m), 1.277 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 3i and 3n), 1.902 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 3k and 3l), 1.984 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3k and 3o),
and 4.223 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3k and 3p).
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 16 of 30

The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |B1− | field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom were calculated as 242.416% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 364.169% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE),
and 196.314% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil
– w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |B1 | field
using the human head model were calculated as 188.841% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 184.166% (comparing
the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE),
and 330.734% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
The sensitivity-related factors of the unnormalized |B1− | field results indicated signifi-
cantly improved sensitivity in the 16-ch RF coil configurations compared to the BP-BC RF
coil configurations. Particularly, in the oil-based cylindrical phantom results, sensitivity-
related factors were detected at the position where the 16-ch RF coil and the scHPM
structure were disposed in the periphery region of the oil phantom. As shown in Figure 3g,
the unnormalized |B1− | field sensitivity rapidly increased due to the influence of the BCWE
located inside the 16-ch RF coil. These results confirmed that the unnormalized |B1− | field
improvement effect of the 16-ch RF coil with the BCWE was significantly better than that of
the BP-BC RF coil with the MCWE, and that the BCWE structure was much more effective
than the MCWE structure when the WE was applied to the Tx/Rx RF coil.
The relative SD value differences of the unnormalized |B1− | field were evaluated us-
ing the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the relative sensitivity differences between the BP-BC RF coil and the
16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately 2.929 times, 8.563 times,
11.000 times, and 6.800 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3a,c), wo-WE/w-
scHPM (Figure 3b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3e,g), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3f,h)
conditions. In the human head model results, the relative SD value differences in the un-
normalized |B1− | field between the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations
were calculated to be approximately 0.959 times, 1.796 times, 1.750 times, and 3.183 times,
respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 3i,k), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3j,l), w-WE/wo-
scHPM (Figure 3m,o), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 3n,p) conditions.
The SD value change ratios of the unnormalized |B1− | field using the oil-based cylin-
drical phantom were calculated as approximately 1.143 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 3a and 3b), 1.000 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 3a and 3e), 1.786 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3a and 3f),
3.341 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3d), 3.756 times
(16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3g), and 4.146 times (16-ch RF
coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3c and 3h). In the human head model results,
the SD value change ratios of the unnormalized |B1− | field were calculated as approx-
imately 1.021 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3i and 3j),
1.083 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3i and 3m), 1.250 times
(BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 3i and 3n), 1.913 times (16-ch RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 3k and 3l), 1.978 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 3k and 3o), and 4.152 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison
of Figures 3k and 3p).
The SD value capability rates of the unnormalized |B1− | field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom was calculated as 128.571% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 1104.762% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
368.312% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates using the human head model were
calculated as 189.819% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the
16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 187.081% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 17 of 30

– w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and 334.331% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the sensitivity-related and SD value-related factors of
the unnormalized |B1− | field showed similar trends. In other words, it was confirmed
that the sensitivity-related factors and SD value-related factors of the unnormalized |B1− |
field increased with the application of the scHPM and the WE, and in the case of the 16-ch
RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE (in Figure 3h,p), the sensitivity-related and SD
value-related factors of the unnormalized |B1− | field improved simultaneously.
Figure 4 (see also Figures S5 and S6) shows the unnormalized |E| field distribution
results using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. The strong un-
normalized |E| field concentration was observed in the peripheral region of the oil-based
cylindrical phantom and the central region of the human head model. The unnormalized
|E| field distribution was similar to the unnormalized |B1− | field distribution, and it
was confirmed that the unnormalized |E| field was more concentrated in the Tx/Rx RF
coil configuration with the scHPM and the WE than in the Tx/Rx RF coil alone. When
comparing the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE (Figure 4d,l) and the 16-ch RF coil
– wo-scHPM – w-BCWE (Figure 4g,o) results, it should be noted that the 16-ch RF coil –
wo-scHPM – w-BCWE (Figure 4g,o) had a stronger unnormalized |E| field concentration
than the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo- BCWE (Figure 4d,l). These results were obtained
from the unnormalized |E| field concentration between the 16-ch RF coil and the BCWE.
In the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE (Figure 4h,p), the unnormalized |E| field
concentration among the 16-ch RF coil, scHPM, and BCWE became stronger.
The relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |E| field were evaluated using
the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the relative sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |E| field between
the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately
2.475 times, 10.665 times, 8.908 times, and 6.411 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-
scHPM (Figure 4a,c), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4e,g), and
w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4f,h) conditions. In the human head model results, the relative
sensitivity differences in the unnormalized |E| field between the BP-BC RF coil and
the 16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately 0.829 times, 1.668
times, 1.663 times, and 2.967 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4i,k),
wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4j,l), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4m,o), and w-WE/w-scHPM
(Figure 4n,p) conditions.
The sensitivity change ratios of the unnormalized |E| field using the oil-based cylindri-
cal phantom were calculated as approximately 0.779 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 4a and 4b), 0.862 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 4a and 4e), 1.139 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4a and 4f),
3.360 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 4d), 3.103 times (16-
ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 4g), and 2.950 times (16-ch RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 4h). In the human head model results, the sensi-
tivity change ratios of the unnormalized |E| field were calculated as approximately 0.978 times
(BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4i and 4j), 1.017 times (BP-BC RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 4i and 4m), 1.263 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 4i and 4n), 1.967 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 4k and 4l), 2.040 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4k and 4o),
and 4.518 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4k and 4p).
The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |E| field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom were calculated as 430.947% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 359.932% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE),
and 259.046% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil
– w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates of the unnormalized |B1 | field
using the human head model were calculated as 201.203% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil –
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 18 of 30

w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 200.523% (comparing
the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE),
and 357.844% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
The sensitivity-related factors of the unnormalized |E| field results tended to con-
tradict the results of other unnormalized EM fields (|B1+ | and |B1− | fields), except for
the unnormalized |E| field in the 16-ch RF coil configuration in the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results. In particular, in the oil-based cylindrical phantom results, unlike the
human head model results, the sensitivity change ratio of the unnormalized |E| field was
the highest for 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE and the lowest for 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE. These results showed that uniform phantoms with low dielectric
properties, located very uniformly and close to the scHPM, such as the oil-based cylindrical
phantom, can increase the concentration of the unnormalized |E| field by the scHPM.
In addition, it was confirmed that the unnormalized |E| field concentration was higher
in the case of the BP-BC RF coil configuration with the WE (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM –
w-MCWE), whereas the unnormalized |E| field concentration was higher in the periphery
region of the oil-based cylindrical phantom owing to the scHPM than in the 16-ch RF coil
configuration (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE).
The relative SD value differences in the unnormalized |E| field were evaluated using
the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model. In the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the relative SD value differences between the BP-BC RF coil and the
16-ch RF coil configurations were calculated to be approximately 2.561 times, 11.626 times,
0.910 times, and 1.747 times, respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4a,c), wo-WE/w-
scHPM (Figure 4b,d), w-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4e,g), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4f,h)
conditions. In the human head model results, the relative SD value differences in the
unnormalized |E| field between the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations
were calculated to be approximately 0.910 times, 1.747 times, 1.743 times, and 3.083 times,
respectively, under wo-WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4i,k), wo-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4j,l), w-
WE/wo-scHPM (Figure 4m,o), and w-WE/w-scHPM (Figure 4n,p) conditions.
The SD value change ratios of the unnormalized |E| field using the oil-based cylindri-
cal phantom were calculated as approximately 0.738 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 4a and 4b), 0.835 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 4a and 4e), 1.066 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4a and 4f),
3.352 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 4d), 3.007 times (16-
ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 4g), and 2.741 times (16-ch RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 4c and 5h). In human head model results, the SD value
change ratios of the unnormalized |E| field were calculated as approximately 1.003 times
(BP-BC RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4i and 4j), 1.056 times (BP-BC RF coil
configurations—comparison of Figures 4i and 4m), 1.270 times (BP-BC RF coil configurations—
comparison of Figures 4i and 4n), 1.926 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of
Figures 4k and 4l), 2.023 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4k and 4o),
and 4.303 times (16-ch RF coil configurations—comparison of Figures 4k and 4p).
The SD value capability rates of the unnormalized |E| field using the oil-based
cylindrical phantom were calculated as 453.999% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 360.129% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
257.186% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – w-BCWE). The sensitivity capability rates using the human head model were
calculated as 192.056% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE and the
16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 191.606% (comparing the BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
– w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and 338.888% (comparing the
BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
For the oil-based cylindrical phantom, the SD value-related and sensitivity-related
factors of the unnormalized |E| field tended to be very similar. In contrast to the BP-BC RF
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 19 of 30

coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE, which represents the highest SD value distribution, the highest
SD value distribution appeared in the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE, followed by
the 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE and the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE. As
shown in Tables 2 and 3, the unnormalized |B1+ | field efficiency and unnormalized |B1− |
field sensitivity improvement were confirmed by applying scHPM with the same dimension
as the 16-ch RF coil and volume-type BCWE compared to BP-BC RF coil configurations.
In addition, it was observed that the sensitivity-related factors and the SD value-related
factors in the unnormalized |E| field improve to similar levels as those in other EM fields
(such as the unnormalized |B1+ | field and the unnormalized |B1− | field). However, this
is not because of the reduction of EM field efficiency by the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM
and the BCWE but the improved sensitivity of the entire EM field. The EM field efficiency
improvement was higher in the 16-ch RF coil configuration.
In addition, to access the uniformity of the EM fields, the coefficient of variation (CV)
was calculated using the SD values (listed in Table 1) and mean values (listed in Table 4) of
EM fields. The CV is defined as the ratio of the SD value to the mean value. It shows the
extent of variability in relation to the mean of the EM field results. As listed in Table 4, the
mean values were calculated using the non-zero values of the EM field, and the change
tendency of the mean values according to the RF coil configurations was similar to that of
the SD values (listed in Table 1).
When comparing uniformity in terms of CV, the 16-ch RF coil configurations in terms
of |B1+ | and |B1− | field uniformity showed no significant difference from the BP-BC RF
coil configurations and provided similar CV. This shows that in terms of |B1+ | and |B1− |
field uniformity, the 16-ch RF coil configurations can improve |B1+ | field efficiency and
|B1− | field sensitivity without degrading the |B1+ | and |B1− | field uniformity compared
to BP-BC RF coil configurations.
However, in terms of the |E| field uniformity, the 16-ch RF coil configuration was
observed to reduce relative uniformity in oil-based cylindrical phantom results that were
not observable in human head model results. According to the oil-based cylindrical
phantom results, the CV values of the |E| field increased due to the low dielectric properties
of the oil-based cylindrical phantom used, and the |E| field uniformity could not be
confirmed in the human head model results.
Unlike the unnormalized EM field analysis results, such as |B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E|
fields, the normalized |B1+ | field (Figure 5) and the SAR map (Figure 6) were calculated
applying a 90◦ RF pulse to the RF coils. To calculate the normalized EM field using the
unnormalized EM field results, we used a method to calculate necessary normalized values
and then applied the computed normalized values to the SAR map and the |B1+ | field
subjected to a 90◦ RF pulse. The Norm-COEF values were calculated for the BP-BC RF coil
and the 16-ch RF coil configurations, respectively, as listed in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5 and Figure 5, the Norm-COEF and normalized |B1+ | fields were
calculated and analyzed using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model.
In the oil-based cylindrical phantom results, the Norm-COEF values of the BP-BC RF coil
configurations were calculated as 0.793 (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.723
(BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.689 (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE),
and 0.521 (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE). The Norm-COEF values of the 16-ch RF
coil configurations were calculated as 0.264 (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 0.071
(16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 0.085 (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
0.076 (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
In the human head model results, the Norm-COEF values of the BP-BC RF coil
configurations were calculated as 0.362 (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.352
(BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.334 (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE),
and 0.273 (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE). The Norm-COEF values of the 16-ch RF
coil configurations were calculated as 0.383 (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 0.087
(16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 0.192 (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
0.199 (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 20 of 30

Table 4. Coefficient of variation (SD/mean) in unnormalized EM field simulation results (|B1+ |,

|B1− |, and |E| fields) using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model.

BP-BC RF BP-BC RF 16-ch RF

16-ch RF Coil
Coil Coil Coil
w-scHPM
wo-scHPM w-scHPM wo-scHPM
Mean values of the unnormalized |B1+ | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.237 0.271 0.722 2.827
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.276 0.383 2.312 2.656
wo-WE 0.251 0.269 0.251 0.499
Human head model
w-WE 0.280 0.350 0.512 1.112
Mean values of the unnormalized |B1− | field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.026 0.024 0.063 0.248
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.023 0.038 0.234 0.262
wo-WE 0.137 0.131 0.118 0.220
Human head model
w-WE 0.141 0.164 0.229 0.480
Mean values of the unnormalized |E| field (V/m)
wo-WE 170.457 135.949 141.255 140.482
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 152.245 189.240 150.249 180.131
wo-WE 141.255 140.482 131.268 252.349
Human head model
w-WE 150.249 180.131 267.025 566.399
CV (SD/mean) of the unnormalized |B1+ | field (%)
wo-WE 1.688 1.4777 0.9695 0.3184
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 1.086 2.8728 2.5087 2.6732
wo-WE 37.067 34.905 34.263 33.066
Human head model
w-WE 35.753 34.325 33.789 33.363
CV (SD/mean) of the unnormalized |B1− | field (%)
wo-WE 53.640 65.871 65.600 55.153
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 60.450 65.036 65.840 64.886
wo-WE 35.139 37.433 39.082 40.073
Human head model
w-WE 36.932 36.563 39.808 39.800
CV (SD/mean) of the unnormalized |E| field (%)
wo-WE 35.306 32.687 109.103 367.758
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 33.001 33.894 308.384 234.515
wo-WE 44.513 44.877 43.574 43.648
Human head model
w-WE 44.175 44.320 43.325 43.452

Table 5. Normalization coefficient (Norm-COEF).

BP-BC RF BP-BC RF
16-ch RF Coil 16-ch RF Coil
Coil Coil
wo-scHPM w-scHPM
wo-scHPM w-scHPM
Norm-COEF (Oil-based cylindrical phantom) (a.u.)
wo-WE 0.793 0.723 0.264 0.085
w-WE 0.689 0.521 0.076 0.071
Norm-COEF (Human head model) (a.u.)
wo-WE 0.362 0.352 0.383 0.199
w-WE 0.334 0.273 0.192 0.087

The normalized |B1+ | fields after the application of the Norm-COEFs (listed in Table 5)
were calculated, as shown in Figure 5 (also see Figures S7 and S8). The Norm-COEF of the
16-ch RF coil with the scHPM or WE was significantly lower compared to the BP-BC RF
coil with the scHPM or WE. In other words, applying the scHPM or WE to the 16-ch RF coil
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 21 of 30

excited an 1 H by a 90◦ RF pulse at the center point of the target object with less RF power
than applying the scHPM or WE to the BP-BC RF coil. In terms of Norm-COEF, the 16-ch RF
coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE provided 3.718 and 4.402 times lower RF power requirements in
the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model, respectively, compared to 16-ch
RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE. The 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE also provided
11.169 and 4.161 times lower RF power requirements in the oil-based cylindrical phantom
and human head model, respectively, compared to the BP-BC RF – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE.
In the normalized |B1+ | field results using oil-based cylindrical phantom and human
head models, the center values of the BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil were both normal-
ized to values when a 90◦ RF pulse was applied. For the comparison of uniformity of 16-ch
RF coil combinations and BP-BC RF coil combinations, the mean value, SD value, and CV of
the normalized |B1+ | field were evaluated as shown in Figure 5 and Table 6. The 16-ch RF
coil configurations produced high unnormalized |B1+ | field efficiency (as listed in Table 5)
without degrading the uniformity of the normalized |B1+ | field distribution compared to
the BP-BC RF coil configurations (as listed in Table 6). These results were equally observed
in the human head model results, and it was confirmed that the 16-ch RF coil configuration
provided a more sensitive and uniform normalized |B1+ | field distribution.

Table 6. Mean values, SD values, and CV (SD/mean) in normalized |B1+ | field simulation results
using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and human head model.

BP-BC RF BP-BC RF 16-ch RF

16-ch RF Coil
Coil Coil Coil
w-scHPM
wo-scHPM w-scHPM wo-scHPM
Mean values of the normalized B1+ field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.191 0.200 0.188 0.196
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.196 0.203 0.190 0.200
wo-WE 0.096 0.100 0.091 0.095
Human head model
w-WE 0.098 0.099 0.094 0.096
SD values of the normalized B1+ field ×10−5 (µT)
wo-WE 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.003
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.006
wo-WE 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.033
Human head model
w-WE 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.033
CV (SD/mean) of the normalized B1+ field (%)
wo-WE 1.011 2.527 1.569 1.430
Oil-based cylindrical phantom
w-WE 0.409 2.183 1.022 2.902
wo-WE 34.304 33.084 37.142 35.043
Human head model
w-WE 33.745 33.256 35.866 34.429

The SAR maps after the application of the Norm-COEFs were calculated, as shown
in Figure 6 (also see Figures S9 and S10) and Table 7. Since the unnormalized SAR maps
involve the SAR results without the consideration of the transmission RF power, more
quantitative SAR maps were analyzed by calculating the normalized SAR maps by applying
a 90◦ RF pulse. The mean and max SAR values are listed in Table 7. In the SAR maps of the
BP-BC RF coil and the 16-ch RF coil configurations, it was not possible to confirm the rapid
change in the SAR map distribution, as shown in Figure 6.
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 22 of 30

Table 7. Whole-average and max SAR values of normalized EM field simulation results.

BP-BC RF BP-BC RF 16-ch RF

16-ch RF Coil
Coil Coil Coil
w-scHPM
wo-scHPM w-scHPM wo-scHPM
Whole-averaged SAR (Mean SAR values) (W/kg)
wo-WE 0.209 0.215 0.249 0.238
w-WE 0.216 0.211 0.243 0.227
Max SAR values (W/kg)
wo-WE 8.203 8.461 8.496 8.472
w-WE 8.376 8.248 8.284 8.552

In the BP-BC RF coil configuration results, the mean SAR values were calculated
as 0.209 W/kg (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.215 W/kg (BP-BC RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 0.216 W/kg (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE), and 0.211
W/kg (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE). The mean SAR values of the 16-ch RF coil
configurations were calculated as 0.249 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE),
0.238 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 0.243 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM
– w-BCWE), and 0.227 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
The max SAR values of the BP-BC RF coil configurations were calculated as 8.203 W/kg
(BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE), 8.461 W/kg (BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-
MCWE), 8.376 W/kg (BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE), and 8.248 W/kg (BP-BC RF
coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE), and the max SAR values of the 16-ch RF coil configurations
were calculated as 8.496 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 8.472 W/kg (16-ch
RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE), 8.284 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE), and
8.552 W/kg (16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE).
Ironically, the results of the normalized SAR maps and SAR values showed no signifi-
cant changes. Since the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and WE provided higher |B1+ | field
efficiency, the distribution of SAR maps was almost unchanged compared to those without
the scHPM and the WE, as the RF coil could be excited by 90◦ using low RF power.
To summarize the unnormalized EM field simulation results, the unnormalized |B1+ |
field sensitivity improvement rate between the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE
(improved 422.237% in the oil-based cylindrical phantom and 430.866% in the human head
model compared to the 16-ch RF coil alone) and the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE
(improved 179.352% in the oil-based cylindrical phantom and 132.823% in the human
head model compared to the BP-BC RF coil alone) was 235.424% based on the oil-based
cylindrical phantom result and 324.391% based on the human head model.
Similarly, the unnormalized |B1− | field sensitivity improvement rate between the
16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE (improved 502.564% in the oil-based cylindrical
phantom and 422.266% in the human head model compared to the 16-ch RF coil alone)
and the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE (improved 256.000% in oil-based cylindrical
phantom and 127.675% in the human head model compared to the BP-BC RF coil alone)
was 196.314% and 330.735% based on the oil-based cylindrical phantom and the human
head model, respectively.
Moreover, the unnormalized |E| field sensitivity improvement rate between the 16-ch
RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE (improved 126.252% in the oil-based cylindrical phantom
and 451.784% in the human head model compared to the 16-ch RF coil alone) and the BP-BC
RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE (improved 113.897% in the oil-based cylindrical phantom
and 295.045% in the human head model compared to the BP-BC RF coil alone) was found
to 110.848% and 153.124%, respectively, using the oil-based cylindrical phantom and the
human head model.
In the unnormalized EM field simulation results, the unnormalized |B1+ | and |B1− |
field sensitivity improvement rates of the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE
were substantial and showed surprisingly similar tendencies. In particular, the 16-ch RF
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 23 of 30

coil consisting of the same dimensions as the scHPM was used as a Tx/Rx RF coil to
significantly improve the |B1+ | field sensitivity. In addition, it was confirmed that the
sensitivity of the |B1− | field was greatly improved by applying the BCWE, which provided
a volume structure, compared to the MCWE.
Moreover, the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE showed little change
in the unnormalized |E| field sensitivity improvement rate. The |E| field sensitivity
improvement rate was calculated under unnormalized conditions, but when applying the
Norm-COEF to an |E| field distribution, the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE
could exhibit a lower |E| field distribution. In addition, these results were also applied
to the SAR maps, and the normalized SAR maps were also measured with a 16-ch RF coil
without any difference.
In the normalized EM field simulation results, the normalized |B1+ | field in the 16-ch
RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE showed a high unnormalized |B1+ | field efficiency
without degrading the uniformity of the normalized |B1+ | field distribution compared to
the BP-BC RF coil with the scHPM and the MCWE. In particular, the results of the human
head model confirmed improved |B1+ | field efficiency in a wider area from the 16-ch RF
coil with the scHPM and the BCWE to the frontal lobe. As a result, it was confirmed that
the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE had better |B1+ | field efficiency and
uniformity than the BP-BC RF coil with the scHPM and the MCWE and could significantly
improve |B1+ | field efficiency without degrading |B1+ | field uniformity.
For the SAR map with the applied Norm-COEFs, the 16-ch RF coil combination with
the BCWE and the scHPM provided RF safety in terms of sufficiently reduced SAR due to
the relatively low RF power applied to the 16-ch RF coil. Under the normalized condition,
both the |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity of the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM –
w-BCWE increased dramatically compared to the BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE,
providing SAR distributions similar to those of the BP-BC RC coil or the 16-ch RF coil alone.
The unnormalized (|B1+ |, |B1− |, and |E| fields) and normalized EM field results
(normalized |B1+ | field and SAR maps) of the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE
and the BP-BC RF coil with scHPM and the MCWE were compared in the x–z and y–z
planes, as well as in the x–y plane, and the results are provided in the Supplementary
Materials (Figures S1−S10).
Here, we describe the results of the EM field simulations of the 16-ch RF coil with the
scHPM and the BCWE, which was intended to improve |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− |
field sensitivity. The scHPM structure has proved to be optimal and has clear limitations
in further structure improvement [47]. The BP-BC RF coil proposed in our previous work
has been widely used in MRI because it provides a highly uniform B1 field distribution,
but a decrease in RF wavelength after increasing the B0 field strength reduces the B1
field uniformity, which is a critical weakness for volume coils, such as BP-BC RF coils.
In addition, the MCWE used as the WE was configured as a multichannel considering
interference with the scHPM, but there were limitations in providing sufficient |B1+ | and
|B1− | field improvement capabilities.
To address these problems, we decided to change the role of the BP-BC RF coil and
the MCWE. The 16-ch RF coil, which provides a more uniform |B1+ | and |B1− | field
distribution with a higher sensitivity than the BC RF coil in UHF MRI, was changed
and applied to a Tx/Rx coil, and the BP-BC RF coil was used to improve the |B1− | field
sensitivity in the MCWE.
As a result, the 16-ch RF coil consisting of the same dimensions as the scHPM was
able to dramatically improve the |B1+ | field efficiency, and the BCWE consisting of the
BC RF coil was also able to significantly improve the |B1− | field sensitivity. Thus, to
improve the limited B1 field sensitivity due to the reduced RF transceiver efficiency and
sensitivity in UHF MRI, the proposed combination of RF coil configurations can be adopted
using a BCWE for improving |B1− | field sensitivity and an scHPM for enhancing |B1+ |
field efficiency.
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 24 of 30

In this study, the |B1+ | field efficiency of the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM was
significantly improved compared to the BP-BC RF coil with the scHPM by configuring
the scHPM structure to fit the size of the 16-ch RF coil and increasing the energy density
without distorting the RF transmit direction. Furthermore, by replacing the MCWE with
the BCWE, higher |B1− | field efficiency was ensured.
The synergy between the BCWE and scHPM configurations allowed the |B1+ | and
|B1− | fields in the 16-ch RF coil to dramatically enhance the Tx/Rx efficiency and sensitivity
compared to BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE. Improvements in Tx/Rx efficiency
and sensitivity could consequently lead to |B1 | field improvement, which can be seen in
Figures S11−S13.
Our numerical EM field calculations also showed that the proposed combination of
the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE provided enhanced |B1+ | field efficiency
and |B1− | field sensitivity in the human head model. The SAR values of the proposed
combination indicate its suitability for UHF MRI.
To discuss a single limitation in this study, we were unable to obtain MR images
for the human head using the proposed 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE. The MRI
system currently in possession is a 7.0 T MRI scanner (Siemens, Magnetom, Germany),
which is currently operated jointly in hospitals and laboratories. For the 7.0 T MRI system
currently in operation, it is essential to obtain an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
human application with research equipment permit, not clinical-only equipment.
Acquisition of an Instrumental Review Board (IRB) is essential for human imaging
using 7.0 T MRI systems for clinical and research purposes. However, the 7.0 T MRI used
for clinical and research purposes is strictly prohibited for obtaining human images with
artifacts such as scHPM and BCWE inserted inside the main magnet bore. For this reason,
it may be difficult to obtain human head images of the 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE
using 7.0 T MRI systems for future human imaging, so we plan to implement the 16-ch RF
coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE using a pre-clinical MRI system.

4. Conclusions
The proposed new combination of the Tx/Rx RF coil configuration using an scHPM
and a WE was tried to simultaneously improve |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field
sensitivity in UHF MRI. In our previous study, we proposed an RF coil combination for the
7.0 T MRI system that provided improved |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity
over the BP-BC RF coil combination with the scHPM and the MCWE.
Since the scHPM structure has already been determined to be the optimal structure,
a method for simultaneously improving |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity
by optimizing the structures of RF coils and the WE was developed. As a result, the
propagation direction of the RF transmission power through the scHPM was further
clarified using a 16-ch RF coil as a Tx/Rx RF coil, and a volumetric WE (BCWE) was
proposed to maximize the efficiency of |B1− | field sensitivity. Through these processes, the
16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE was proposed as a new RF coil combination
to simultaneously improve the B1+ field efficiency and the B1− field sensitivity.
The EM field simulations were performed to verify the effects of the proposed config-
urations using numerical calculations. The configuration of the 16-ch RF coil combination
with the scHPM and the BCWE was modified to switch the roles of the BP-BC RF coil and
the MCWE. The 16-ch RF coil combination with the scHPM and the BCWE was compared
to the BP-BC RF coil combination with the scHPM and the MCWE. The structures of the
scHPM and the WE (BCWE and MCWE) were designed to match the propagation direction
of the RF wave generated by the Tx/Rx RF coils (16-ch RF coil and BP-BC RF coil) and the
positions of both the scHPM and the WE (BCWE and MCWE). Specifically, the design and
dimensions of both the scHPM and the WE (BCWE and MCWE) were such that they could
be located between the elements of the 16-ch RF coil and the legs of the BC coil.
The proposed 16-ch RF coil combination with the scHPM and the BCWE dramatically
improved both the |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity of the 16-ch RF coil in
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 25 of 30

UHF MRI. The |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity of 16-ch RF coil combination
with the scHPM and the BCWE provided significant performance improvements over the
BP-BC RF coil combination with the scHPM and the MCWE proposed in the previous work.
According to these results, the proposed RF coil configuration can improve the performance
of 16-ch RF coils limited by low RF power and SAR issues in UHF MRI (above 7.0 T).
Nevertheless, the application of the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM and the BCWE to
the actual clinical 7.0 T MRI failed, and we could not perform it experimentally to verify
with the EM field simulation results. MR image acquisition using unauthorized devices
such as scHPMs and BCWEs is strictly prohibited. Due to strict MRI safety regulations,
actual experiments using the scHPM and the BCWE could not be performed. However,
through the findings demonstrated, we confirmed the possibility of scHPM and BCWE use
to simultaneously enhance |B1+ | field efficiency and |B1− | field sensitivity.
In our future work, a study on the combination of the 16-ch RF coil with the scHPM
and the MCWE will be conducted using numerical EM field simulations. To conduct a
study on the optimized MCWE location, we will study the effects of the alignment and tilt
angle of 16-ch RF coil, scHPM, and MCWE.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/s22228968/s1: Figure S1. Unnormalized |B1+ | field distribution
(x–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC
RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil –
wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
– w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE;
(h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S2. Unnormalized |B1+ | field distribution (y–z
plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil –
wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM –
wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE;
(f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch
RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S3. Unnormalized |B1− | field distribution (x–z plane) in the
oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM –
wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
(d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF
coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM
– w-BCWE.; Figure S4. Unnormalized |B1− | field distribution (y–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical
phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC
RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.;
Figure S5. Unnormalized |E| field distribution (x–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h)
and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM –
wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S6.
Unnormalized |E| field distribution (y–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and
human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
(e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch
RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S7. Normalized
|B1+ | field distribution (x–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model
(i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k)
16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil
– wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM –
w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S8. Normalized |B1+ | field distribution
(y–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC
RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil –
wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 26 of 30

– w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE;
(h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S9. Normalized SAR maps (x–z plane) constructed
using Norm-COEF values: (a) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE; (c) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e)
BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g) 16-ch RF coil –
wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S10. Normalized SAR maps
(y–z plane) constructed using Norm-COEF values: (a) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b)
BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d) 16-ch RF coil
– w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM –
w-MCWE; (g) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE. Figure
S11. Unnormalized |B1 | field distribution (x–y plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h)
and human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil –
w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM –
wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE;
(g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S12.
Unnormalized |B1 | field distribution (x–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and
human head model (i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM
– wo-MCWE; (c,k) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE;
(e,m) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch
RF coil – wo-scHPM – w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.; Figure S13. Unnormalized
|B1 | field distribution (y–z plane) in the oil-based cylindrical phantom (a–h) and human head model
(i–p): (a,i) BP-BC RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (b,j) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-MCWE; (c,k)
16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (d,j) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – wo-BCWE; (e,m) BP-BC RF coil
– wo-scHPM – w-MCWE; (f,l) BP-BC RF coil – w-scHPM – w-MCWE; (g,o) 16-ch RF coil – wo-scHPM –
w-BCWE; (h,p) 16-ch RF coil – w-scHPM – w-BCWE.
Author Contributions: J.-H.S. and Y.-S.J. designed the EM field simulation models for RF coil
configurations (16-ch RF coil, scHPM, and BCWE) and analyzed EM field simulation models using
FDTD methods. J.-H.S. and Y.-S.J. conducted the simulation calculations. J.-H.S. and Y.-S.J. performed
the writing and formatting of this manuscript and contributed equally as the first co-authors. C.-H.O.
and J.-Y.C. supervised the project. C.-H.O. and J.-Y.C. reviewed and edited this manuscript and
contributed equally as the corresponding authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded
by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2022R1A2C2010363) and a grant of the Korea Health
Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded
by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HR14C0002).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Thulborn, K.R. Clinical rationale for very-high field (3.0 Tesla) functional magnetic resonance imaging. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging
1999, 10, 37–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Yacoub, E.; Shmuel, A.; Pfeuffer, J.; Van De Moortele, P.F.; Adriany, G.; Andersen, P.; Vaughan, J.T.; Merkle, H.; Ugurbil, K.; Hu, X.
Imaging brain function in humans at 7 tesla. Magn. Reson. Med. 2001, 45, 588–594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Frayne, R.; Goodyear, B.G.; Dickhoff, P.; Lauzon, M.L.; Sevick, R.J. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: Challenges and
advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Investig. Radiol. 2003, 38, 385–402. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Lu, H.; Nagae-Poetscher, L.M.; Golay, X.; Lin, D.; Pomper, M.; van Zijl, P.C.M. Routine clinical brain MRI sequences for use at 3.0
Tesla. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2005, 22, 13–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. FDA. Clears First 7T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Device. 2017. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/
Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm580154.htm (accessed on 27 June 2019).
6. Kerchner, G.A. Ultra-high field 7T MRI: A new tool for studying Alzheimer’s disease. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2011, 26, 91–95. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 27 of 30

7. McKiernan, E.F.; O’Brien, J.T. 7T MRI for neurodegenerative dementias in vivo: A systematic review of the literature. J. Neurol.
Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2017, 88, 564–574. [CrossRef]
8. Düzel, E.; Costagli, M.; Donatelli, G.; Speck, O.; Cosottini, M. Studying Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, and amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis with 7-T magnetic resonance. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 2021, 5, 36. [CrossRef]
9. Haeger, A.; Bottlaender, M.; Lagarde, J.; Porciuncula Baptista, R.; Rabrait-Lerman, C.; Luecken, V.; Schulz, J.B.; Vignaud,
A.; Sarazin, M.; Reetz, K.; et al. What can 7T sodium MRI tell us about cellular energy depletion and neurotransmission in
Alzheimer’s disease? Alzheimer’s Dement. 2021, 17, 1843–1854. [CrossRef]
10. Okada, T.; Fujimoto, K.; Fushimi, Y.; Akasaka, T.; Thuy, D.H.D.; Shima, A.; Sawamoto, N.; Oishi, N.; Zhang, Z.; Funaki, T.; et al.
Neuroimaging at 7 Tesla: A pictorial narrative review. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2022, 12, 3406–3435. [CrossRef]
11. Vaughan, J.T.; Garwood, M.; Collins, C.M.; Liu, W.; DelaBarre, L.; Adriany, G.; Andersen, P.; Merkle, H.; Goebel, R.; Smith,
M.B.; et al. 7T vs. 4T: RF power, homogeneity, and signal-to-noise comparison in head images. Magn. Reson. Med. 2001, 46, 24–30.
[CrossRef]
12. Norris, D.G. High field human imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2003, 18, 519–529. [CrossRef]
13. Van der Zwaag, W.; Francis, S.; Head, K.; Peters, A.; Gowland, P.; Morris, P.; Bowtell, R. fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: Characterising
BOLD signal changes. NeuroImage 2009, 47, 1425–1434. [CrossRef]
14. Beisteiner, R.; Robinson, S.; Wurnig, M.; Hilbert, M.; Merksa, K.; Rath, J.; Höllinger, I.; Klinger, N.; Marosi, C.; Trattnig, S.; et al.
Clinical fMRI: Evidence for a 7 T benefit over 3 T. NeuroImage 2011, 57, 1015–1021. [CrossRef]
15. de Graaf, W.L.; Kilsdonk, I.D.; Lopez-Soriano, A.; Zwanenburg, J.J.M.; Visser, F.; Polman, C.H.; Castelijns, J.A.; Geurts, J.J.G.;
Pouwels, P.J.W.; Luijten, P.R.; et al. Clinical application of multi-contrast 7-T MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: Increased lesion
detection compared to 3 T confined to grey matter. Eur. Radiol. 2013, 23, 528–540. [CrossRef]
16. Kilsdonk, I.D.; Jonkman, L.E.; Klaver, R.; van Veluw, S.J.; Zwanenburg, J.J.M.; Kuijer, J.P.A.; Pouwels, P.J.W.; Twisk, J.W.R.;
Wattjes, M.P.; Luijten, P.R.; et al. Increased cortical grey matter lesion detection in multiple sclerosis with 7 T MRI: A post-mortem
verification study. Brain 2016, 139, 1472–1481. [CrossRef]
17. Barisano, G.; Sepehrband, F.; Ma, S.; Jann, K.; Cabeen, R.; Wang, D.J.; Toga, A.W.; Law, M. Clinical 7 T MRI: Are we there yet? A
review about magnetic resonance imaging at ultra-high field. Br. J. Radiol. 2019, 92, 20180492. [CrossRef]
18. Oh, S.; Webb, A.G.; Neuberger, T.; Park, B.; Collins, C.M. Experimental and numerical assessment of MRI-induced temperature
change and SAR distributions in phantoms and in vivo. Magn. Reson. Med. 2010, 63, 218–223. [CrossRef]
19. Hoff, M.N.; McKinney 4th, A.; Shellock, F.G.; Rassner, U.; Gilk, T.; Watson, R.E., Jr.; Greenberg, T.D.; Froelich, J.; Kanal, E. Safety
considerations of 7-T MRI in clinical practice. Radiology 2019, 292, 509–518. [CrossRef]
20. Golestanirad, L.; Rahsepar, A.A.; Kirsch, J.E.; Suwa, K.; Collins, J.C.; Angelone, L.M.; Keil, B.; Passman, R.S.; Bonmassar, G.;
Serano, P.; et al. Changes in the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency energy in patients with retained cardiac leads
during MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T. Magn. Reson. Med. 2019, 81, 653–669. [CrossRef]
21. Kraff, O.; Quick, H.H. 7T: Physics, safety, and potential clinical applications. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017, 46, 1573–1589.
[CrossRef]
22. Uwano, I.; Metoki, T.; Sendai, F.; Yoshida, R.; Kudo, K.; Yamashita, F.; Higuchi, S.; Ito, K.; Harada, T.; Goodwin, J.; et al.
Assessment of sensations experienced by subjects during MR imaging examination at 7T. Magn. Reson. Med. Sci. 2015, 14, 35–41.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Hansson, B.; Markenroth Bloch, K.; Owman, T.; Nilsson, M.; Lätt, J.; Olsrud, J.; Björkman-Burtscher, I.M. Subjectively reported
effects experienced in an actively shielded 7T MRI: A large-scale study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020, 52, 1265–1276. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Fagan, A.J.; Bitz, A.K.; Björkman-Burtscher, I.M.; Collins, C.M.; Kimbrell, V.; Raaijmakers, A.J.E.; ISMRM Safety Committee. 7T
MR safety. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2021, 53, 333–346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Fiedler, T.M.; Orzada, S.; Flöser, M.; Rietsch, S.H.G.; Schmidt, S.; Stelter, J.K.; Wittrich, M.; Quick, H.H.; Bitz, A.K.; Ladd, M.E.
Performance and safety assessment of an integrated transmit array for body imaging at 7 T under consideration of specific
absorption rate, tissue temperature, and thermal dose. NMR Biomed. 2022, 35, e4656. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Röschmann, P. Radiofrequency penetration and absorption in the human body: Limitations to high field whole-body nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 1987, 14, 922–931. [CrossRef]
27. Keltner, J.R.; Carlson, J.W.; Roos, M.S.; Wong, S.T.; Wong, T.L.; Budinger, T.F. Electromagnetic fields of surface coil in vivo NMR at
high frequencies. Magn. Reson. Med. 1991, 22, 467–480. [CrossRef]
28. Bottomley, P.A.; Roemer, P.B. Homogeneous tissue model estimates of RF power deposition in human NMR studies. Local
elevations predicted in surface coil decoupling. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1992, 649, 144–159. [CrossRef]
29. Lattanzi, R.; Sodickson, D.K.; Grant, A.K.; Zhu, Y. Electrodynamic constraints on homogeneity and radiofrequency power
deposition in multiple coil excitations. Magn. Reson. Med. 2009, 61, 315–334. [CrossRef]
30. Puddu, C.; Fanti, A.; Curreli, N.; Mazzarella, G. Challenging the lumped birdcage coil model for high field MRI. In Proceedings of
the IEEE 2014 Loughborough Antennas & Propagation Conference (LAPC), Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK, 10–11 November
2014; pp. 308–311.
31. Woo, M.K.; DelaBarre, L.; Waks, M.; Radder, J.; Choi, U.-S.; Lagore, R.; Ugurbil, K.; Adriany, G. A 16-channel dipole antenna array
for human head magnetic resonance imaging at 10.5 tesla. Sensors 2021, 21, 7250. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 28 of 30

32. Hong, S.-E.; Oh, S.; Choi, H.-D. RF exposure assessment for various poses of patient assistant in open MRI environment. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 4967. [CrossRef]
33. Bottomley, P.A.; Andrew, E.R. RF magnetic field penetration, phase shift and power dissipation in biological tissue: Implications
for NMR imaging. Phys. Med. Biol. 1978, 23, 630–643. [CrossRef]
34. Buchli, R.; Saner, M.; Meier, D.; Boskamp, E.B.; Boesiger, P. Increased RF power absorption in MR imaging due to RF coupling
between body coil and surface coil. Magn. Reson. Med. 1989, 9, 105–112. [CrossRef]
35. Grandolfo, M.; Vecchia, P.; Gandhi, O.P. Magnetic resonance imaging: Calculation of rates of energy absorption by a human-torso
model. Bioelectromagnetics 1990, 11, 117–128. [CrossRef]
36. Simunic, D.; Wach, P.; Renhart, W.; Stollberger, R. Spatial distribution of high-frequency electromagnetic energy in human head
during MRI: Numerical results and measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1996, 43, 88–94. [CrossRef]
37. Jin, J.; Chen, J. On the SAR and field inhomogeneity of birdcage coils loaded with the human head. Magn. Reson. Med. 1997, 38,
953–963. [CrossRef]
38. Qian, D.; El-Sharkawy, A.-M.M.; Bottomley, P.A.; Edelstein, W.A. An RF dosimeter for independent SAR measurement in MRI
scanners. Med. Phys. 2013, 40, 122303. [CrossRef]
39. Yetisir, F.; Turk, E.A.; Guerin, B.; Gagoski, B.A.; Grant, P.E.; Adalsteinsson, E.; Wald, L.L. Safety and imaging performance of
two-channel RF shimming for fetal MRI at 3T. Magn. Reson. Med. 2021, 86, 2810–2821. [CrossRef]
40. Noetscher, G.M.; Serano, P.; Wartman, W.A.; Fujimoto, K.; Makarov, S.N. Visible Human Project® female surface based computa-
tional phantom (Nelly) for radio-frequency safety evaluation in MRI coils. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260922. [CrossRef]
41. Seo, J.-H.; Ryu, Y.; Chung, J.-Y. Simulation study of radio frequency safety and the optimal size of a single-channel surface radio
frequency coil for mice at 9.4 T magnetic resonance imaging. Sensors 2022, 22, 4274. [CrossRef]
42. Tarasek, M.R.; Shu, Y.; Kang, D.; Tao, S.; Gray, E.; Huston, J.; Hua, Y.; Yeo, D.T.B.; Bernstein, M.A.; Foo, T.K. Average SAR
prediction, validation, and evaluation for a compact MR scanner head-sized RF coil. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2022, 85, 168–176.
[CrossRef]
43. Pang, Y.; Xie, Z.; Li, Y.; Xu, D.; Vigneron, D.; Zhang, X. Resonant mode reduction in radiofrequency volume coils for ultrahigh
field magnetic resonance imaging. Materials 2011, 4, 1333–1344. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Santarelli, M.F.; Giovannetti, G.; Hartwig, V.; Celi, S.; Positano, V.; Landini, L. The core of medical imaging: State of the art and
perspectives on the detectors. Electronics 2021, 10, 1642. [CrossRef]
45. Yoon, J.-S.; Kim, J.-M.; Chung, H.-J.; Jeong, Y.-J.; Jeong, G.-W.; Park, I.; Kim, G.-W.; Oh, C.-H. Development of a proton-frequency-
transparent birdcage radiofrequency coil for in vivo 13 C MRS/MRSI study in a 3.0 T MRI system. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11445.
[CrossRef]
46. Seo, J.-H.; Chung, J.-Y. A preliminary study for reference RF coil at 11.7 T MRI: Based on electromagnetic field simulation of
hybrid-BC RF coil according to diameter and length at 3.0, 7.0 and 11.7 T. Sensors 2022, 22, 1512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Seo, J.-H.; Han, Y.; Chung, J.-Y. A comparative study of birdcage RF coil configurations for ultra-high field magnetic resonance
imaging. Sensors 2022, 22, 1741. [CrossRef]
48. Bottomley, P.A.; Redington, R.W.; Edelstein, W.A.; Schenck, J.F. Estimating radiofrequency power deposition in body NMR
imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 1985, 2, 336–349. [CrossRef]
49. Chen, C.N.; Sank, V.J.; Cohen, S.M.; Hoult, D.I. The field dependence of NMR imaging. I. Laboratory assessment of signal-to-noise
ratio and power deposition. Magn. Reson. Med. 1986, 3, 722–729. [CrossRef]
50. Robitaille, P.M. On RF power and dielectric resonances in UHF MRI. NMR Biomed. 1999, 12, 318–319. [CrossRef]
51. Hoult, D.I.; Phil, D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high field imaging experiment. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000, 12, 46–67.
[CrossRef]
52. Barberi, E.A.; Gati, J.S.; Rutt, B.K.; Menon, R.S. A transmit-only/receive-only (TORO) RF system for high field MRI/MRS
applications. Magn. Reson. Med. 2000, 43, 284–289. [CrossRef]
53. Collins, C.M.; Smith, M.B. Signal-to-noise ratio and absorbed power as functions of main magnetic field strength, and definition
of “90 degrees” RF pulse for the head in the birdcage coil. Magn. Reson. Med. 2001, 45, 684–691. [CrossRef]
54. Yang, Q.X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Collins, C.M.; Smith, M.B.; Liu, H.; Zhu, X.-H.; Vaughan, J.T.; Ugurbil, K.; Chen, W. Analysis of
wave behavior in lossy dielectric samples at high field. Magn. Reson. Med. 2002, 47, 982–989. [CrossRef]
55. Apurva, R.; Yadav, R.; Bhuiya, T.; Harsh, R. Development of compact and flexible quadrature hybrid coupler using coaxial cable
with capacitive loading for 1.5T indigenous MRI system. Prog. Electromagn. Res. Lett. 2020, 93, 143–151. [CrossRef]
56. Uğurbil, K. Magnetic resonance imaging at ultrahigh fields. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2014, 61, 1364–1379. [CrossRef]
57. Malik, S.J.; Hand, J.W.; Satnarine, R.; Price, A.N.; Hajnal, J.V. Specific absorption rate and temperature in neonate models resulting
from exposure to a 7T head coil. Magn. Reson. Med. 2021, 86, 1299–1313. [CrossRef]
58. Malik, S.J.; Hand, J.W.; Carmichael, D.W.; Hajnal, J.V. Evaluation of specific absorption rate and heating in children exposed to a
7T MRI head coil. Magn. Reson. Med. 2022, 88, 1434–1449. [CrossRef]
59. Edelstein, W.A.; Glover, G.H.; Hardy, C.J.; Redington, R.W. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn. Reson. Med.
1986, 3, 604–618. [CrossRef]
60. De Zwart, J.A.; Ledden, P.J.; Gelderen, P.V.; Bodurka, J.; Chu, R.; Duyn, J.H. Signal-to-noise ratio and parallel imaging performance
of a 16-channel receive-only brain coil array at 3.0 Tesla. Magn. Reson. Med. 2004, 51, 22–26. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 29 of 30

61. Kim, K.-N.; Seo, J.-H.; Han, S.-D.; Heo, P.; Im, G.H.; Lee, J.H. Development of double-layer coupled coil for improving S/N in 7 T
small-animal MRI. Scanning 2015, 37, 361–371. [CrossRef]
62. Kim, K.-N.; Ryu, Y.; Seo, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-B. Magnetic field sensitivity at 7-T using dual-helmholtz transmit-only coil and 12-channel
receive-only bended coil. Scanning 2016, 38, 515–524. [CrossRef]
63. Kim, K.-N.; Hernandez, D.; Seo, J.-H.; Noh, Y.; Han, Y.; Ryu, Y.C.; Chung, J.-Y. Quantitative assessment of phased array coils
with different numbers of receiving channels in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and spatial noise variation in magnetic resonance
imaging. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Giovannetti, G.; Flori, A.; Martini, N.; Francischello, R.; Aquaro, G.D.; Pingitore, A.; Frijia, F. Sodium radiofrequency coils for
magnetic resonance: From design to applications. Electronics 2021, 10, 1788. [CrossRef]
65. Kell, R.C.; Greenham, A.C.; Olds, G.C.E. High-permittivity temperature-stable ceramic dielectrics with low microwave loss. Am.
Ceram. Soc. 1973, 56, 352–354. [CrossRef]
66. Dang, Z.-M.; Yuan, J.-K.; Yao, S.-H.; Liao, R.-J. Flexible nanodielectric materials with high permittivity for power energy storage.
Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 6334–6365. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Lee, B.-Y.; Zhu, X.-H.; Rupprecht, S.; Lanagan, M.T.; Yang, Q.X.; Chen, W. Large improvement of RF transmission efficiency
and reception sensitivity for human in vivo 31 P MRS imaging using ultrahigh dielectric constant materials at 7 T. Magn. Reson.
Imaging 2017, 42, 158–163. [CrossRef]
68. Zivkovic, I.; Teeuwisse, W.; Slobozhanyuk, A.; Nenasheva, E.; Webb, A. High permittivity ceramics improve the transmit field
and receive efficiency of a commercial extremity coil at 1.5 Tesla. J. Magn. Reson. 2019, 299, 59–65. [CrossRef]
69. Vorobyev, V.; Shchelokova, A.; Zivkovic, I.; Slobozhanyuk, A.; Baena, J.D.; Del Risco, J.P.; Abdeddaim, R.; Webb, A.; Glybovski, S.
An artificial dielectric slab for ultrahigh field MRI: Proof of concept. J. Magn. Reson. 2020, 320, 106835. [CrossRef]
70. Hoult, D.I.; Tomanek, B. Use of mutually inductive coupling in probe design. Concepts Magn. Reson. 2002, 15, 262–285. [CrossRef]
71. Wang, T.; Ciobanu, L.; Zhang, X.; Webb, A. Inductively coupled RF coil design for simultaneous microimaging of multiple
samples. Concepts Magn. Reson. B 2008, 33B, 236–243. [CrossRef]
72. Bulumulla, S.B.; Fiveland, E.; Park, K.J.; Foo, T.K.; Hardy, C.J. Inductively coupled wireless RF coil arrays. Magn. Reson. Imaging
2015, 33, 351–357. [CrossRef]
73. Mett, R.R.; Sidabras, J.W.; Hyde, J.S. MRI surface-coil pair with strong inductive coupling. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2016, 87, 124704.
[CrossRef]
74. Byun, J.-D.; Seo, J.-H.; Kang, T.; Ryu, Y.; Kim, K.-N. Birdcage coil with inductively coupled RF coil array for improving |B1 | field
sensitivity in 7-T MRI. J. Magn. 2017, 22, 378–381. [CrossRef]
75. Seo, J.-H.; Lee, J.J.; Kim, K.-N. Surface coil with an inductively coupled wireless surface and volume coil for improving the
magnetic field sensitivity at 400-MHz MRI. J. Magn. 2018, 23, 192–195. [CrossRef]
76. Mahmood, M.F.; Gharghan, S.K.; Mohammed, S.L.; Al-Naji, A.; Chahl, J. Design of powering wireless medical sensor based on
spiral-spider coils. Designs 2021, 5, 59. [CrossRef]
77. Teeuwisse, W.M.; Brink, W.M.; Haines, K.N.; Webb, A.G. Simulations of high permittivity materials for 7 T neuroimaging and
evaluation of a new barium titanate-based dielectric. Magn. Reson. Med. 2012, 67, 912–918. [CrossRef]
78. Seo, J.-H.; Ryu, Y.; Han, S.-D.; Song, H.; Kim, H.-K.; Kim, K.-N. Influence of biological subject, shielding cage, and resonance
frequency on radio wave propagation in a birdcage coil. Electron. Lett. 2016, 52, 801–803. [CrossRef]
79. Ahmad, S.F.; Kim, Y.C.; Choi, I.C.; Kim, H.D. Recent progress in birdcage RF coil technology for MRI system. Diagnostics 2020, 10,
1017. [CrossRef]
80. Kim, Y.C.; Kim, H.D.; Yun, B.-J.; Ahmad, S.F. A simple analytical solution for the designing of the birdcage RF coil used in NMR
imaging applications. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2242. [CrossRef]
81. Yee, K.S. Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 1996, 14, 302–307.
82. Haemer, G.G.; Vaidya, M.; Collins, C.M.; Sodickson, D.K.; Wiggins, G.C.; Lattanzi, R. Approaching ultimate intrinsic specific
absorption rate in radiofrequency shimming using high-permittivity materials at 7 Tesla. Magn. Reson. Med. 2018, 80, 391–399.
[CrossRef]
83. Liu, W.; Kao, C.-P.; Collins, C.M.; Smith, M.B.; Yang, Q.X. On consideration of radiated power in RF field simulations for MRI.
Magn. Reson. Med. 2013, 69, 290–294. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Yang, Q.X.; Rupprecht, S.; Luo, W.; Sica, C.; Herse, Z.; Wang, J.; Cao, Z.; Vesek, J.; Lanagan, M.T.; Carluccio, G.; et al. Radiofre-
quency field enhancement with high dielectric constant (HDC) pads in a receive array coil at 3.0 T. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013,
38, 435–440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Cao, Z.; Park, J.; Cho, Z.-H.; Collins, C.M. Numerical evaluation of image homogeneity, signal-to-noise ratio, and specific
absorption rate for human brain imaging at 1.5, 3, 7, 10.5, and 14 T in an 8-channel transmit/receive array. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging
2015, 41, 1432–1439. [CrossRef]
86. Alon, L.; Deniz, C.M.; Carluccio, G.; Brown, R.; Sodickson, D.K.; Collins, C.M. Effects of anatomical differences on electromagnetic
fields, SAR, and temperature change. Concepts Magn. Reson. Part B Magn. Reson. Eng. 2016, 46, 8–18. [CrossRef]
87. Vaidya, M.V.; Collins, C.M.; Sodickson, D.K.; Brown, R.; Wiggins, G.C.; Lattanzi, R. Dependence of B1 + and B1 − field patterns of
surface coils on the electrical properties of the sample and the MR operating frequency. Concepts Magn. Reson. Part B Magn. Reson.
Eng. 2016, 46, 25–40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sensors 2022, 22, 8968 30 of 30

88. Alon, L.; Lattanzi, R.; Lakshmanan, K.; Brown, R.; Deniz, C.M.; Sodickson, D.K.; Collins, C.M. Transverse slot antennas for high
field MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 2018, 80, 1233–1242. [CrossRef]
89. Vaidya, M.V.; Deniz, C.M.; Collins, C.M.; Sodickson, D.K.; Lattanzi, R. Manipulating transmit and receive sensitivities of
radiofrequency surface coils using shielded and unshielded high-permittivity materials. Magn. Reson. Mater. Phys. Biol. Med.
2018, 31, 355–366. [CrossRef]
90. Vaidya, M.V.; Lazar, M.; Deniz, C.M.; Haemer, G.G.; Chen, G.; Bruno, M.; Sodickson, D.K.; Lattanzi, R.; Collins, C.M. Improved
detection of fMRI activation in the cerebellum at 7 T with dielectric pads extending the imaging region of a commercial head coil.
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018, 48, 431–440. [CrossRef]
91. Hoult, D.I. The principle of reciprocity in signal strength calculations—A mathematical guide. Concepts Magn. Reson. 2000, 12,
173–187. [CrossRef]
92. Im, G.H.; Seo, J.-H.; Kim, K.-N.; Heo, P.; Chung, C.C.; Jang, M.S.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, S.I. Effective arrangement of separated
transmit-only/receive-only RF coil for improvement of B1 homogeneity at 7 Tesla. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 2014, 65, 616–624.
[CrossRef]
93. Tang, L.; Hue, Y.K.; Ibrahim, T.S. Studies of RF shimming techniques with minimization of RF power deposition and their
associated temperature changes. Concepts Magn. Reson. Part B Magn. Reson. Eng. 2011, 39B, 11–25. [CrossRef]
94. Herrmann, T.; Liebig, T.; Mallow, J.; Bruns, C.; Stadler, J.; Mylius, J.; Brosch, M.; Svedja, J.T.; Chen, Z.; Rennings, A.; et al.
Metamaterial-based transmit and receive system for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at ultra-high magnetic fields. PLoS
ONE 2018, 13, e0191719. [CrossRef]