Kazim Gumus1, Brian Keating1, Nathan White2, Brian Andrews-Shigaki3,4, Brian Armstrong5, Julian Maclaren6,7, Maxim Zaitsev6, Anders Dale2, Thomas Ernst1. 1. John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 3. Department of Military & Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 7. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy of two real-time motion tracking systems in the MR environment: MR-based prospective motion correction (PROMO) and optical moiré phase tracking (MPT). METHODS: Five subjects performed eight predefined head rotations of 8° ± 3° while being simultaneously tracked with PROMO and MPT. Structural images acquired immediately before and after each tracking experiment were realigned with SPM8 to provide a reference measurement. RESULTS: Mean signed errors (MSEs) in MPT tracking relative to SPM8 were less than 0.3 mm and 0.2° in all 6 degrees of freedom, and MSEs in PROMO tracking ranged up to 0.2 mm and 0.3°. MPT and PROMO significantly differed from SPM8 in y-translation and y-rotation values (P < 0.05). Maximum absolute errors ranged up to 2.8 mm and 2.1° for MPT, and 2.2 mm and 2.9° for PROMO. CONCLUSION: This study presents the first in vivo comparison of MPT and PROMO tracking. Our data show that two methods yielded similar performances (within 1 mm and 1° standard deviation) relative to reference image registration. Tracking errors of both systems were larger than offline tests. Future work is required for further comparison of two methods in vivo with higher precision.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy of two real-time motion tracking systems in the MR environment: MR-based prospective motion correction (PROMO) and optical moiré phase tracking (MPT). METHODS: Five subjects performed eight predefined head rotations of 8° ± 3° while being simultaneously tracked with PROMO and MPT. Structural images acquired immediately before and after each tracking experiment were realigned with SPM8 to provide a reference measurement. RESULTS: Mean signed errors (MSEs) in MPT tracking relative to SPM8 were less than 0.3 mm and 0.2° in all 6 degrees of freedom, and MSEs in PROMO tracking ranged up to 0.2 mm and 0.3°. MPT and PROMO significantly differed from SPM8 in y-translation and y-rotation values (P < 0.05). Maximum absolute errors ranged up to 2.8 mm and 2.1° for MPT, and 2.2 mm and 2.9° for PROMO. CONCLUSION: This study presents the first in vivo comparison of MPT and PROMO tracking. Our data show that two methods yielded similar performances (within 1 mm and 1° standard deviation) relative to reference image registration. Tracking errors of both systems were larger than offline tests. Future work is required for further comparison of two methods in vivo with higher precision.
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: Kazim Gumus; Brian Keating; Benedikt A Poser; Brian Armstrong; Linda Chang; Julian Maclaren; Thomas Prieto; Oliver Speck; Maxim Zaitsev; Thomas Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A Alhamud; M Dylan Tisdall; Aaron T Hess; Khader M Hasan; Ernesta M Meintjes; André J W van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Wolfgang Bogner; In-Young Choi; Aaron T Hess; Phil Lee; Ernesta M Meintjes; M Dylan Tisdall; Maxim Zaitzev; André van der Kouwe Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.044