PURPOSE: To introduce a new algorithm for estimating data shifts (used for both rotation and translation estimates) for motion-corrected PROPELLER MRI. The method estimates shifts for all blades jointly, emphasizing blade-pair correlations that are both strong and more robust to noise. THEORY AND METHODS: The heads of three volunteers were scanned using a PROPELLER acquisition while they exhibited various amounts of motion. All data were reconstructed twice, using motion estimates from the original and new algorithm. Two radiologists independently and blindly compared 216 image pairs from these scans, ranking the left image as substantially better or worse than, slightly better or worse than, or equivalent to the right image. RESULTS: In the aggregate of 432 scores, the new method was judged substantially better than the old method 11 times, and was never judged substantially worse. CONCLUSION: The new algorithm compared favorably with the old in its ability to estimate bulk motion in a limited study of volunteer motion. A larger study of patients is planned for future work.
PURPOSE: To introduce a new algorithm for estimating data shifts (used for both rotation and translation estimates) for motion-corrected PROPELLER MRI. The method estimates shifts for all blades jointly, emphasizing blade-pair correlations that are both strong and more robust to noise. THEORY AND METHODS: The heads of three volunteers were scanned using a PROPELLER acquisition while they exhibited various amounts of motion. All data were reconstructed twice, using motion estimates from the original and new algorithm. Two radiologists independently and blindly compared 216 image pairs from these scans, ranking the left image as substantially better or worse than, slightly better or worse than, or equivalent to the right image. RESULTS: In the aggregate of 432 scores, the new method was judged substantially better than the old method 11 times, and was never judged substantially worse. CONCLUSION: The new algorithm compared favorably with the old in its ability to estimate bulk motion in a limited study of volunteer motion. A larger study of patients is planned for future work.
Authors: E Lavdas; M Vlychou; E Zaloni; K Vassiou; A Tsagkalis; Z Dailiana; I Fezoulidis Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Christian Marx; Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Karsten Wolter; Jürgen Gieseke; Wolfgang Block; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Frank Traeber; Winfried Willinek; Hans Heinz Schild; Guido Matthias Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ran Sui; Lin Chen; Yuguo Li; Jianpan Huang; Kannie W Y Chan; Xiang Xu; Peter C M van Zijl; Jiadi Xu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Lucilio Cordero-Grande; Emer J Hughes; Jana Hutter; Anthony N Price; Joseph V Hajnal Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Lucilio Cordero-Grande; Giulio Ferrazzi; Rui Pedro A G Teixeira; Jonathan O'Muircheartaigh; Anthony N Price; Joseph V Hajnal Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 4.668