Benjamin Zahneisen1,2, Brian Keating1, Aditya Singh1, Michael Herbst1,3, Thomas Ernst1. 1. University of Hawaii, Department of Medicine, John A. Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 2. Stanford University, Department of Radiology, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: One potential barrier for using prospective motion correction (PMC) in the clinic is the unpredictable nature of a scan because of the direct interference with the imaging sequence. We demonstrate that a second set of "de-corrected" images can be reconstructed from a scan with PMC that show how images would have appeared without PMC enabled. THEORY AND METHODS: For three-dimensional scans, the effects of PMC can be undone by performing a retrospective reconstruction based on the inverse of the transformation matrix used for real time gradient feedback. Retrospective reconstruction is performed using a generalized SENSE approach with continuous head motion monitored using a single-marker optical camera system. RESULTS: Reverse retrospective reconstruction is demonstrated for phantom and in vivo scans using an magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequence including parallel and Partial Fourier acceleration. CONCLUSION: Reverse retrospective reconstruction can almost perfectly undo the effects of prospective feedback, and thereby provide a second image data set with the effects of motion correction removed. In case of correct feedback, one can directly compare the quality of the corrected with that of the uncorrected scan. Additionally, because erroneous feedback during PMC may introduce artifacts, it is possible to eliminate artifacts in a corrupted scan by reversing the false gradient updates. Magn Reson Med 75:2341-2349, 2016.
PURPOSE: One potential barrier for using prospective motion correction (PMC) in the clinic is the unpredictable nature of a scan because of the direct interference with the imaging sequence. We demonstrate that a second set of "de-corrected" images can be reconstructed from a scan with PMC that show how images would have appeared without PMC enabled. THEORY AND METHODS: For three-dimensional scans, the effects of PMC can be undone by performing a retrospective reconstruction based on the inverse of the transformation matrix used for real time gradient feedback. Retrospective reconstruction is performed using a generalized SENSE approach with continuous head motion monitored using a single-marker optical camera system. RESULTS: Reverse retrospective reconstruction is demonstrated for phantom and in vivo scans using an magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequence including parallel and Partial Fourier acceleration. CONCLUSION: Reverse retrospective reconstruction can almost perfectly undo the effects of prospective feedback, and thereby provide a second image data set with the effects of motion correction removed. In case of correct feedback, one can directly compare the quality of the corrected with that of the uncorrected scan. Additionally, because erroneous feedback during PMC may introduce artifacts, it is possible to eliminate artifacts in a corrupted scan by reversing the false gradient updates. Magn Reson Med 75:2341-2349, 2016.
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
Authors: Michael Herbst; Benjamin Zahneisen; Benjamin Knowles; Maxim Zaitsev; Thomas Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Benjamin Zahneisen; Chris Lovell-Smith; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Oliver Speck; Brian Armstrong; Thomas Ernst Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-06-20 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: 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: 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: Jakob M Slipsager; Stefan L Glimberg; Liselotte Højgaard; Rasmus R Paulsen; Paul Wighton; M Dylan Tisdall; Camilo Jaimes; Borjan A Gagoski; P Ellen Grant; André van der Kouwe; Oline V Olesen; Robert Frost Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 4.668