Aditya Singh1, Benjamin Zahneisen2, Brian Keating2, Michael Herbst2,3, Linda Chang2, Maxim Zaitsev3, Thomas Ernst2. 1. Department of Medicine, The Queen's Medical Center, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, 1356 Lusitana Street 7th Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA. singha@hawaii.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, The Queen's Medical Center, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, 1356 Lusitana Street 7th Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Medical Physics, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prospective motion correction (PMC) during brain imaging using camera-based tracking of a skin-attached marker may suffer from problems including loss of marker visibility due to the coil and false correction due to non-rigid-body facial motion, such as frowning or squinting. A modified PMC system is introduced to mitigate these problems and increase the robustness of motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The method relies on simultaneously tracking two markers, each providing six degrees of freedom, that are placed on the forehead. This allows us to track head motion when one marker is obscured and detect skin movements to prevent false corrections. Experiments were performed to compare the performance of the two-marker motion correction technique to the previous single-marker approach. RESULTS: Experiments validate the theory developed for adaptive marker tracking and skin movement detection, and demonstrate improved image quality during obstruction of the line-of-sight of one marker when subjects squint or when subjects squint and move simultaneously. CONCLUSION: The proposed methods eliminate two common failure modes of PMC and substantially improve the robustness of PMC, and they can be applied to other optical tracking systems capable of tracking multiple markers. The methods presented can be adapted to the use of more than two markers.
OBJECTIVE: Prospective motion correction (PMC) during brain imaging using camera-based tracking of a skin-attached marker may suffer from problems including loss of marker visibility due to the coil and false correction due to non-rigid-body facial motion, such as frowning or squinting. A modified PMC system is introduced to mitigate these problems and increase the robustness of motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The method relies on simultaneously tracking two markers, each providing six degrees of freedom, that are placed on the forehead. This allows us to track head motion when one marker is obscured and detect skin movements to prevent false corrections. Experiments were performed to compare the performance of the two-marker motion correction technique to the previous single-marker approach. RESULTS: Experiments validate the theory developed for adaptive marker tracking and skin movement detection, and demonstrate improved image quality during obstruction of the line-of-sight of one marker when subjects squint or when subjects squint and move simultaneously. CONCLUSION: The proposed methods eliminate two common failure modes of PMC and substantially improve the robustness of PMC, and they can be applied to other optical tracking systems capable of tracking multiple markers. The methods presented can be adapted to the use of more than two markers.
Authors: Chuan Huang; Jerome L Ackerman; Yoann Petibon; Thomas J Brady; Georges El Fakhri; Jinsong Ouyang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Melvyn B Ooi; Sascha Krueger; William J Thomas; Srirama V Swaminathan; Truman R Brown Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jurgen E M Mourik; Mark Lubberink; Floris H P van Velden; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marcus Görge Ullisch; Jürgen Johann Scheins; Christoph Weirich; Elena Rota Kops; Abdullah Celik; Lutz Tellmann; Tony Stöcker; Hans Herzog; Nadim Jon Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicolas A Pannetier; Theano Stavrinos; Peter Ng; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Karl Young; Gerald Matson; Norbert Schuff Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 4.668
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: F Godenschweger; U Kägebein; D Stucht; U Yarach; A Sciarra; R Yakupov; F Lüsebrink; P Schulze; O Speck Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Robert Frost; Paul Wighton; F Işık Karahanoğlu; Richard L Robertson; P Ellen Grant; Bruce Fischl; M Dylan Tisdall; André van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Manish Anand; Jed A Diekfuss; Scott Bonnette; Ian Short; Matthew Hurn; Dustin R Grooms; Gregory D Myer Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-12
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