PURPOSE: To evaluate the patterns of head motion in scans of young children and to examine the influence of corrective techniques, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We investigate changes that both retrospective (with and without diffusion table reorientation) and prospective (implemented with a short navigator sequence) motion correction induce in the resulting diffusion tensor measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen pediatric subjects (aged 5-6 years) were scanned using 1) a twice-refocused, 2D diffusion pulse sequence, 2) a prospectively motion-corrected, navigated diffusion sequence with reacquisition of a maximum of five corrupted diffusion volumes, and 3) a T1 -weighted structural image. Mean fractional anisotropy (FA) values in white and gray matter regions, as well as tractography in the brainstem and projection fibers, were evaluated to assess differences arising from retrospective (via FLIRT in FSL) and prospective motion correction. In addition to human scans, a stationary phantom was also used for further evaluation. RESULTS: In several white and gray matter regions retrospective correction led to significantly (P < 0.05) reduced FA means and altered distributions compared to the navigated sequence. Spurious tractographic changes in the retrospectively corrected data were also observed in subject data, as well as in phantom and simulated data. CONCLUSION: Due to the heterogeneity of brain structures and the comparatively low resolution (∼2 mm) of diffusion data using 2D single shot sequencing, retrospective motion correction is susceptible to distortion from partial voluming. These changes often negatively bias diffusion tensor imaging parameters. Prospective motion correction was shown to produce smaller changes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the patterns of head motion in scans of young children and to examine the influence of corrective techniques, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We investigate changes that both retrospective (with and without diffusion table reorientation) and prospective (implemented with a short navigator sequence) motion correction induce in the resulting diffusion tensor measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen pediatric subjects (aged 5-6 years) were scanned using 1) a twice-refocused, 2D diffusion pulse sequence, 2) a prospectively motion-corrected, navigated diffusion sequence with reacquisition of a maximum of five corrupted diffusion volumes, and 3) a T1 -weighted structural image. Mean fractional anisotropy (FA) values in white and gray matter regions, as well as tractography in the brainstem and projection fibers, were evaluated to assess differences arising from retrospective (via FLIRT in FSL) and prospective motion correction. In addition to human scans, a stationary phantom was also used for further evaluation. RESULTS: In several white and gray matter regions retrospective correction led to significantly (P < 0.05) reduced FA means and altered distributions compared to the navigated sequence. Spurious tractographic changes in the retrospectively corrected data were also observed in subject data, as well as in phantom and simulated data. CONCLUSION: Due to the heterogeneity of brain structures and the comparatively low resolution (∼2 mm) of diffusion data using 2D single shot sequencing, retrospective motion correction is susceptible to distortion from partial voluming. These changes often negatively bias diffusion tensor imaging parameters. Prospective motion correction was shown to produce smaller changes.
Authors: Van J Wedeen; Patric Hagmann; Wen-Yih Isaac Tseng; Timothy G Reese; Robert M Weisskoff Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: M Dylan Tisdall; Aaron T Hess; Martin Reuter; Ernesta M Meintjes; Bruce Fischl; André J W van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Paul A Taylor; A Alhamud; Andre van der Kouwe; Muhammad G Saleh; Barbara Laughton; Ernesta Meintjes Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Eva Heckova; Michal Považan; Bernhard Strasser; Patrik Krumpolec; Petra Hnilicová; Gilbert J Hangel; Philipp A Moser; Ovidiu C Andronesi; Andre J van der Kouwe; Peter Valkovic; Barbara Ukropcova; Siegfried Trattnig; Wolfgang Bogner Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aylin Rosberg; Jetro J Tuulari; Venla Kumpulainen; Minna Lukkarinen; Elmo P Pulli; Eero Silver; Anni Copeland; Ekaterina Saukko; Jani Saunavaara; John D Lewis; Linnea Karlsson; Hasse Karlsson; Harri Merisaari Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Graham L Baum; David R Roalf; Philip A Cook; Rastko Ciric; Adon F G Rosen; Cedric Xia; Mark A Elliott; Kosha Ruparel; Ragini Verma; Birkan Tunç; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur; Danielle S Bassett; Theodore D Satterthwaite Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nico U F Dosenbach; Jonathan M Koller; Eric A Earl; Oscar Miranda-Dominguez; Rachel L Klein; Andrew N Van; Abraham Z Snyder; Bonnie J Nagel; Joel T Nigg; Annie L Nguyen; Victoria Wesevich; Deanna J Greene; Damien A Fair Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vladislav Drobinin; Holly Van Gestel; Carl A Helmick; Matthias H Schmidt; Chris V Bowen; Rudolf Uher Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Nabin Koirala; Daniel Kleinman; Meaghan V Perdue; Xing Su; Martina Villa; Elena L Grigorenko; Nicole Landi Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.038