PURPOSE: Prospective motion correction of MRI scans using an external tracking device (such as a camera) is becoming increasingly popular, especially for imaging of the head. In order for external tracking data to be transformed into the MR scanner reference frame, the pose (i.e., position and orientation) of the camera relative to the scanner--or cross-calibration--must be accurate. In this study, we investigated how errors in cross-calibration affect the accuracy of motion correction feedback in MRI. THEORY AND METHODS: An operator equation is derived describing how calibration errors relate to errors in applied motion compensation. By taking advantage of spherical symmetry and performing a Taylor approximation for small rotation angles, a closed form expression and upper limit for the residual tracking error is provided. RESULTS: Experiments confirmed theoretical predictions of a bilinear dependence of the residual rotational component on the calibration error and the motion performed, modulated by a sinusoidal dependence on the angle between the calibration error axis and motion axis. The residual translation error is bounded by the sum of the rotation angle multiplied by the translational calibration error plus the linear head displacement multiplied by the calibration error angle. CONCLUSION: The results make it possible to calculate the required cross-calibration accuracy for external tracking devices for a range of motions. Scans with smaller expected movements require less accuracy in cross-calibration than scans involving larger movements. Typical clinical applications require that the calibration accuracy is substantially below 1 mm and 1°.
PURPOSE: Prospective motion correction of MRI scans using an external tracking device (such as a camera) is becoming increasingly popular, especially for imaging of the head. In order for external tracking data to be transformed into the MR scanner reference frame, the pose (i.e., position and orientation) of the camera relative to the scanner--or cross-calibration--must be accurate. In this study, we investigated how errors in cross-calibration affect the accuracy of motion correction feedback in MRI. THEORY AND METHODS: An operator equation is derived describing how calibration errors relate to errors in applied motion compensation. By taking advantage of spherical symmetry and performing a Taylor approximation for small rotation angles, a closed form expression and upper limit for the residual tracking error is provided. RESULTS: Experiments confirmed theoretical predictions of a bilinear dependence of the residual rotational component on the calibration error and the motion performed, modulated by a sinusoidal dependence on the angle between the calibration error axis and motion axis. The residual translation error is bounded by the sum of the rotation angle multiplied by the translational calibration error plus the linear head displacement multiplied by the calibration error angle. CONCLUSION: The results make it possible to calculate the required cross-calibration accuracy for external tracking devices for a range of motions. Scans with smaller expected movements require less accuracy in cross-calibration than scans involving larger movements. Typical clinical applications require that the calibration accuracy is substantially below 1 mm and 1°.
Authors: Jessica Schulz; Thomas Siegert; Enrico Reimer; Christian Labadie; Julian Maclaren; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Robert Turner Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Murat Aksoy; Christoph Forman; Matus Straka; Stefan Skare; Samantha Holdsworth; Joachim Hornegger; Roland Bammer Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Julian Maclaren; Oliver Speck; Daniel Stucht; Peter Schulze; Jürgen Hennig; Maxim Zaitsev Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Benjamin Zahneisen; Chris Lovell-Smith; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Oliver Speck; Brian Armstrong; Thomas Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Julian Maclaren; Brian S R Armstrong; Robert T Barrows; K A Danishad; Thomas Ernst; Colin L Foster; Kazim Gumus; Michael Herbst; Ilja Y Kadashevich; Todd P Kusik; Qiaotian Li; Cris Lovell-Smith; Thomas Prieto; Peter Schulze; Oliver Speck; Daniel Stucht; Maxim Zaitsev Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kazim Gumus; Brian Keating; Nathan White; Brian Andrews-Shigaki; Brian Armstrong; Julian Maclaren; Maxim Zaitsev; Anders Dale; Thomas Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hendrik Mattern; Alessandro Sciarra; Frank Godenschweger; Daniel Stucht; Falk Lüsebrink; Georg Rose; Oliver Speck Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Michael A Ohliger; Jeremy W Gordon; Lucas Carvajal; Peder E Z Larson; Jao J Ou; Shubhangi Agarwal; Zihan Zhu; Daniel B Vigneron; Cornelius von Morze Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.668