Acceleration comparison of HYPR TRICKS with different 3D imaging techniques

	3D Hybrid	3D CART	512-TRICKS	CLTRICKS	HYPRTRICKS
N_p^a	512 × π/2	512	512	120^b	10
N_z	N_z	N_z	N_z/3	2 × N_z / 4	N_z/3
f_a	80 × 3 = 240	51 × 3 = 153	51	29^c	1

Note:—N_z indicates the number of sections; f_a, the acceleration factor of HYPR TRICKS versus the corresponding technique, which is ratio of N_p × N_z from the 2 techniques; 3D Hybrid, 3D radial in-plane and Cartesian through-plane technique; 3D CART, 3D Cartesian technique full Nyquist sampling; 512-TRICKS, 3D Cartesian TRICKS with the same spatial resolution as HYPR TRICKS without partial Fourier, rectangular FOV, etc; CLTRICKS, clinically used 3D Cartesian TRICKS that is described in the article. Parameters chosen in the article were based on the clinical protocol.
^a Where N_p is the number of encodings per timeframe in the k_x-k_y plane. For radial imaging, it is the number of projections per timeframe, and for the Cartesian imaging, it is the number of phased-encoding lines per timeframe.
^b Partial Fourier and rectangular FOV techniques were applied, given the in-plane pixel size 6 times larger than that achieved by the HYPR TRICKS.
^c This factor was calculated on the basis of the ratio of the actual frame update time (2.4 seconds versus 0.26 seconds) together with the ratio of the voxel size (2.8 mm³ versus 0.88 mm³).