Hassan B Hawsawi1,2, Ozlem Ipek3,4, David W Carmichael5,6, and Louis Lemieux1
1Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Administration of Medical Physics, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, 3King’s College London, London, United Kingdom, 4CIBM-AIT, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 5Department of Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom, 6Developmental Imaging and Biophysics Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
1Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Administration of Medical Physics, King Abdullah Medical City, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, 3King’s College London, London, United Kingdom, 4CIBM-AIT, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 5Department of Biomedical Engineering, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom, 6Developmental Imaging and Biophysics Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
Performing computational EM simulations of icEEG electrode in MRI helps to reduce the time to test multiple scenarios empirically; however, simulating a complete model consumes time compared to a simplified model. The simplified model can cause increase or reduction in heating estimation.
Figure 1: Simplified model 8C1SW: 8-contact electrode with 1
shared wire (connected to the 8 contacts).
Figure 3: Estimated SAR distributions in the coronal view
for: (A) simulation 1 and (B) simulation 2.