Yu-Chien Wu1, Andrew L Alexander. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. yuchienwu@wisc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To calibrate and correct the gradient errors including gradient amplitude scaling errors, background/imaging gradients, and residual gradients in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS: A calibration protocol using an isotropic phantom was proposed. Gradient errors were estimated by using linear regression analyses on quadratic functions of diffusion gradients along 3 orthogonal directions. A 6-element total effective scaling vector is generated from the calibration protocol to retrospectively correct gradient errors in DTI experiments. RESULTS: The accuracy of the calibration protocol was within 1% or less in estimating gradient scaling errors. On both the brain study and the computer simulations, the retrospective correction minimized undesirable estimate biases of DTI measurements due to gradient errors. CONCLUSION: The protocol and retrospective correction are shown to be effective. The method may be used for prospective correction if actual diffusion-gradient waveforms are available. The methodology is expandable to general diffusion imaging schemes.
OBJECTIVE: To calibrate and correct the gradient errors including gradient amplitude scaling errors, background/imaging gradients, and residual gradients in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). METHODS: A calibration protocol using an isotropic phantom was proposed. Gradient errors were estimated by using linear regression analyses on quadratic functions of diffusion gradients along 3 orthogonal directions. A 6-element total effective scaling vector is generated from the calibration protocol to retrospectively correct gradient errors in DTI experiments. RESULTS: The accuracy of the calibration protocol was within 1% or less in estimating gradient scaling errors. On both the brain study and the computer simulations, the retrospective correction minimized undesirable estimate biases of DTI measurements due to gradient errors. CONCLUSION: The protocol and retrospective correction are shown to be effective. The method may be used for prospective correction if actual diffusion-gradient waveforms are available. The methodology is expandable to general diffusion imaging schemes.
Authors: P S Tofts; D Lloyd; C A Clark; G J Barker; G J Parker; P McConville; C Baldock; J M Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; Allen T Newton; Colin B Hansen; E Brian Welch; Adam W Anderson; Jeffrey J Luci; Carlo Pierpaoli; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03
Authors: S Deprez; Michiel B de Ruiter; S Bogaert; R Peeters; J Belderbos; D De Ruysscher; S Schagen; S Sunaert; P Pullens; E Achten Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; E Brian Welch; Zhaohua Ding; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Tsuicheng D Chiu; Tatsuya J Arai; James Campbell Iii; Steve B Jiang; Ralph P Mason; Strahinja Stojadinovic Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James O'Callaghan; Jack Wells; Simon Richardson; Holly Holmes; Yichao Yu; Simon Walker-Samuel; Bernard Siow; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240