Nicolas A Pannetier1,2, Theano Stavrinos1,2, Peter Ng1,2, Michael Herbst3,4, Maxim Zaitsev3, Karl Young1,2, Gerald Matson1,2, Norbert Schuff1,2. 1. Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, JABSOM, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Establishing a framework to evaluate performances of prospective motion correction (PMC) MRI considering motion variability between MRI scans. METHODS: A framework was developed to obtain quantitative comparisons between different motion correction setups, considering that varying intrinsic motion patterns between acquisitions can induce bias. Intrinsic motion was considered by replaying in a phantom experiment the recorded motion trajectories from subjects. T1-weighted MRI on five volunteers and two different marker fixations (mouth guard and nose bridge fixations) were used to test the framework. Two metrics were investigated to quantify the improvement of the image quality with PMC. RESULTS: Motion patterns vary between subjects as well as between repeated scans within a subject. This variability can be approximated by replaying the motion in a distinct phantom experiment and used as a covariate in models comparing motion corrections. We show that considering the intrinsic motion alters the statistical significance in comparing marker fixations. As an example, two marker fixations, a mouth guard and a nose bridge, were evaluated in terms of their effectiveness for PMC. A mouth guard achieved better PMC performance. CONCLUSION: Intrinsic motion patterns can bias comparisons between PMC configurations and must be considered for robust evaluations. A framework for evaluating intrinsic motion patterns in PMC is presented.
PURPOSE: Establishing a framework to evaluate performances of prospective motion correction (PMC) MRI considering motion variability between MRI scans. METHODS: A framework was developed to obtain quantitative comparisons between different motion correction setups, considering that varying intrinsic motion patterns between acquisitions can induce bias. Intrinsic motion was considered by replaying in a phantom experiment the recorded motion trajectories from subjects. T1-weighted MRI on five volunteers and two different marker fixations (mouth guard and nose bridge fixations) were used to test the framework. Two metrics were investigated to quantify the improvement of the image quality with PMC. RESULTS: Motion patterns vary between subjects as well as between repeated scans within a subject. This variability can be approximated by replaying the motion in a distinct phantom experiment and used as a covariate in models comparing motion corrections. We show that considering the intrinsic motion alters the statistical significance in comparing marker fixations. As an example, two marker fixations, a mouth guard and a nose bridge, were evaluated in terms of their effectiveness for PMC. A mouth guard achieved better PMC performance. CONCLUSION: Intrinsic motion patterns can bias comparisons between PMC configurations and must be considered for robust evaluations. A framework for evaluating intrinsic motion patterns in PMC is presented.
Authors: Joseph Y Cheng; Marcus T Alley; Charles H Cunningham; Shreyas S Vasanawala; John M Pauly; Michael Lustig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-02-03 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: M Herbst; B A Poser; A Singh; W Deng; B Knowles; M Zaitsev; V A Stenger; T Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Aditya Singh; Benjamin Zahneisen; Brian Keating; Michael Herbst; Linda Chang; Maxim Zaitsev; Thomas Ernst Journal: MAGMA Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 2.310