Milestone-Proposal talk:The first magnetic resonance image (MRI)

Revision as of 16:42, 26 October 2017 by Juan Carlos (talk | contribs) (-- ~~~~: new section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.

RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

In the proposed plaque citation, suggest replacing the word "substance" with "object" as noted in Dr. Lauterbur's Nature publication. Would it sound better to rearrange the third sentence to "This demonstration was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection?" Note there are a number of typos in the citation. Please correct and re-enter in the milestone proposal.

Is there still a public presence at the building where Dr. Lauterbur did his research? Will that building remain intact in the foreseeable future?

Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jjtaub (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

Thank you for your comments. I have changed the proposed plaque citation as per your suggestion and corrected any typos in the proposal. The building where Dr lauterbur did his work will remain in tact.

Please let me know if there are other comments. Jesse Taub

Re: Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesse - I just checked the proposal and the plaque citation still has the original text. Also, I did not get an answer in regards to my question about whether the original building where the achievement was accomplished in still has a public presence. If it does, wouldn't it be more significant and meaningful to have the plaque installed at that location given the building will remain intact? Are there obstacles such that the plaque cannot be installed there?

Re: Re: Re: RE: The first magnetic resonance image (MRI) -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In the plaque citation: 1) Please add a dash between "two" and "dimensional," 2) Recommend replacing "a substance" in the second sentence with "the object."

-- Jjtaub (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the Advocate's question regarding the location of the Milestone Plaque and the suggestion of Robert Colburn ,I added additional words to this proposal to justify its placement in Stony Brook University's new MART building rather then their Chemistry building, Jesse Taub

Advocate comments -- Administrator1 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jesse and Jason,

In response to Robert Colburn's comments following and Jesse's request, I will try to answer both at this writing. I hope I don't get into trouble.

1- According to my "Concise" Oxford English Dictionary; "Concise" being almost 3 inches thick;

   - Distinct - Recognizably different in nature; individual or separate
                    - Readily distinguishable by the senses

2- Distinctive - individually characteristic

                        - distinct from other of its kind

Distinctive contains the word distinct. I go with distinctive. It appears six of one or one half dozen of the other but distinctive is more inclusive to this case in my opinion.

I agree with Robert's change to the second sentence "The proton distribution of the object was distinctively encoded by using magnetic field gradients".

Jason; Do you agree with Robert's recommendations and do you wish to make the changes or Jesse per Jesse's response.

Thank You,

Regards,

Victor G. Zourides, P.E. (Ret)

P.S. Jason, I know it will be a privilege to meet you when all is done.

Re: Advocate comments -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

From English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, the difference in meaning is as follows: "distinctly" means in a distinct manner; clearly or precisely. For example, "speak more distinctly."

"Distinctively" means: In a distinctive manner; in a way that is notable for its difference; distinguishing, having a special quality, notable. For example, "the distinctive stripes of a zebra" or "Nevertheless, The Grand Budapest Hotel is distinctively and uniquely Zweigian." I believe it refers to a quality that sets something apart from others.

It appears that the word "distinctly" is a better match for what the sentence (and the citation) is trying to convey. Thus, I recommend changing the sentence to "The proton distribution of the object was distinctly encoded by using magnetic field gradients."

Comments from Jesse Taub -- Administrator1 (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jason,

The following is our latest version of the Citation for the MRI Milestone proposal. It incorporates your and Robert Colburn's minor revisions Our local History Committee would like to change "demonstration" to "achievement". Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. If not, we will use "demonstration".In any event I would appreciate your timely response so that I can finalize the Citation in our proposal.


Revised Citation

The first two dimensional images of an object using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) were produced at Stony Brook University in 1973. The distribution of the object was distinctly encoded by using magnetic field gradients. This achievement was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection.

Re: Comments from Jesse Taub -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesse,

In the first sentence, please add a dash between "two" and "dimensional." I think the second sentence is not as clear now because the word "proton" was removed. I suggest adding it back in. Other than that, I'm fine with the citation.

Comments from Jesse Taub -- Administrator1 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The citation has been changed to world-wide from world wide as per the Advocate's comment. Jesse Taub

Changing out of passive voice -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing from passive to active voice:

In 1973 Stony Brook University produced the first two-dimensional images of an object using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). Using magnetic field gradients, the machine encoded the proton distribution of an object. This achievement was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection.

Curious what the first object to be imaged was?

Re: Changing out of passive voice -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with changing the citation to active voice, but in the second sentence, I suggest replacing "an" with "the". The first object to be imaged was a test tube filled with water (http://www.two-views.com/mri-imaging/history.html#sthash.ZBWphrEO.dpbs, http://mriquestions.com/who-invented-mri.html).

Re: Changing out of passive voice -- M.j.bastiaans (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with the active voice in the first sentence, but I am not so happy with the second sentence. Introducing 'the machine' without any further explanation sounds strange and seems to be done only for the purpose of changing to the active voice. I suggest that we keep the second sentence as it appeared in the original citation proposal: "The proton distribution of the object was distinctly encoded by using magnetic field gradients."

Re: Re: Changing out of passive voice -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I support the milestone, but the wording needs revision. Try this for a second sentence:

In 1973 Stony Brook University produced the first two-dimensional images of an object using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). The NMR machine utlized magnetic field gradients to encode the proton distribution of an object. This achievement was a major advance for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and paved the way for its worldwide usage as a noninvasive method to examine body tissue for disease detection.

Dave Bart

-- JaninA (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

While I am OK with the active mode of the Citation, it was not the University that produced the images....I suggest that we either give the names or a name a group.

-- JaninA (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively we might want to go back to passive, in case we ant to retain the University name.

-- Juan Carlos (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The mention of a “machine” hints mechanical aspects which are misleading, specially to the general public.

In my opinion it should not present in the Citation.

The text of the citations being discussed is different from the text included in the action item sent for the Meeting.

May I also add that the 2003 Nobel prize in Medicine was shared by an investigator of the Stony Brook University (Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham) "for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging"