UNLABELLED: PET imaging of nonhuman primates (NHPs) requires correction of head motion if the subjects are scanned awake and their heads are unrestrained, because the NHPs move their heads faster and more frequently than human subjects. This work focuses on designing and validating 2 motion-correction algorithms for awake NHP brain PET imaging. METHODS: Two motion-correction methods were implemented for awake NHP brain PET imaging: multiacquisition frame (MAF) and event-by-event (EBE). Motion data were acquired from an external motion-tracking device. The MAF method divides scan data into short subframes, reconstructs each subframe individually, and registers them to a reference orientation. This method suffers from residual intraframe motion and data loss when motion is large because a minimum frame duration is often required. The EBE method, previously implemented for a human brain scanner and adapted for a small-animal PET scanner in this work, eliminates intraframe motion and should have a best accuracy. We first evaluated the accuracy of both motion-correction methods with moving phantom scans. Both motion-correction methods were then applied to awake NHP brain PET studies with a gamma-aminobutyric acid A-benzodiazepine receptor ligand, (11)C-flumazenil, and the reconstructed images were compared with those from a motion-free anesthetized study. RESULTS: The phantom studies showed that EBE motion correction recovers the contrast (within 3%) similarly to the static study, whereas MAF motion correction using the standard algorithm setting showed a 25% reduction in contrast from the static case. In awake NHP brain PET imaging, EBE motion correction better recovers the fine structures than the MAF method, as compared with anesthetized studies. CONCLUSION: The large magnitude and frequency of NHP head motion suggests that EBE motion correction with accurate externally measured motion data can noticeably alleviate image blurring due to the intraframe motion in the MAF motion-correction method.
UNLABELLED: PET imaging of nonhuman primates (NHPs) requires correction of head motion if the subjects are scanned awake and their heads are unrestrained, because the NHPs move their heads faster and more frequently than human subjects. This work focuses on designing and validating 2 motion-correction algorithms for awake NHP brain PET imaging. METHODS: Two motion-correction methods were implemented for awake NHP brain PET imaging: multiacquisition frame (MAF) and event-by-event (EBE). Motion data were acquired from an external motion-tracking device. The MAF method divides scan data into short subframes, reconstructs each subframe individually, and registers them to a reference orientation. This method suffers from residual intraframe motion and data loss when motion is large because a minimum frame duration is often required. The EBE method, previously implemented for a human brain scanner and adapted for a small-animal PET scanner in this work, eliminates intraframe motion and should have a best accuracy. We first evaluated the accuracy of both motion-correction methods with moving phantom scans. Both motion-correction methods were then applied to awake NHP brain PET studies with a gamma-aminobutyric acid A-benzodiazepine receptor ligand, (11)C-flumazenil, and the reconstructed images were compared with those from a motion-free anesthetized study. RESULTS: The phantom studies showed that EBE motion correction recovers the contrast (within 3%) similarly to the static study, whereas MAF motion correction using the standard algorithm setting showed a 25% reduction in contrast from the static case. In awake NHP brain PET imaging, EBE motion correction better recovers the fine structures than the MAF method, as compared with anesthetized studies. CONCLUSION: The large magnitude and frequency of NHP head motion suggests that EBE motion correction with accurate externally measured motion data can noticeably alleviate image blurring due to the intraframe motion in the MAF motion-correction method.
Authors: Yuan-Chuan Tai; Ananya Ruangma; Douglas Rowland; Stefan Siegel; Danny F Newport; Patrick L Chow; Richard Laforest Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christine M Sandiego; Xiao Jin; Tim Mulnix; Krista Fowles; David Labaree; Jim Ropchan; Yiyun Huang; Kelly Cosgrove; Stacy A Castner; Graham V Williams; Lisa Wells; Eugenii A Rabiner; Richard E Carson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael A Nader; Drake Morgan; H Donald Gage; Susan H Nader; Tonya L Calhoun; Nancy Buchheimer; Richard Ehrenkaufer; Robert H Mach Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2006-07-09 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Xiao Jin; Chung Chan; Tim Mulnix; Vladimir Panin; Michael E Casey; Chi Liu; Richard E Carson Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Andrew J Montgomery; Kris Thielemans; Mitul A Mehta; Federico Turkheimer; Sanida Mustafovic; Paul M Grasby Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chung Chan; John Onofrey; Yiqiang Jian; Mary Germino; Xenophon Papademetris; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 10.048