Tao Zhang1,2, Joseph Y Cheng1,2, Yuxin Chen3, Dwight G Nishimura2, John M Pauly2, Shreyas S Vasanawala1. 1. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a robust motion estimation method for free-breathing body MRI using dense coil arrays. METHODS: Self-navigating pulse sequences can measure subject motion without using external motion monitoring devices. With dense coil arrays, individual coil elements can provide localized motion estimates. An averaged motion estimate over all coils is often used for motion compensation. However, this motion estimate may not accurately represent the dominant motion within the imaging volume. In this work, a coil clustering method is proposed to automatically determine the dominant motion for dense coil arrays. The feasibility of the proposed method is investigated in free-breathing abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, and compared with manual motion estimate selection for respiratory motion estimation and electrocardiography for cardiac motion estimation. RESULTS: Automated motion estimation achieved similar respiratory motion estimation compared to manual selection (averaged correlation coefficient 0.989 and 0.988 for abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, respectively), and accurate cardiac triggering compared to electrocardiography (averaged temporal variability 17.5 ms). CONCLUSION: The proposed method can provide accurate automated motion estimation for body MRI using dense coil arrays. It can enable self-navigated free-breathing abdominal and cardiac MRI without the need for external motion monitoring devices. Magn Reson Med 76:197-205, 2016.
PURPOSE: To develop a robust motion estimation method for free-breathing body MRI using dense coil arrays. METHODS: Self-navigating pulse sequences can measure subject motion without using external motion monitoring devices. With dense coil arrays, individual coil elements can provide localized motion estimates. An averaged motion estimate over all coils is often used for motion compensation. However, this motion estimate may not accurately represent the dominant motion within the imaging volume. In this work, a coil clustering method is proposed to automatically determine the dominant motion for dense coil arrays. The feasibility of the proposed method is investigated in free-breathing abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, and compared with manual motion estimate selection for respiratory motion estimation and electrocardiography for cardiac motion estimation. RESULTS: Automated motion estimation achieved similar respiratory motion estimation compared to manual selection (averaged correlation coefficient 0.989 and 0.988 for abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, respectively), and accurate cardiac triggering compared to electrocardiography (averaged temporal variability 17.5 ms). CONCLUSION: The proposed method can provide accurate automated motion estimation for body MRI using dense coil arrays. It can enable self-navigated free-breathing abdominal and cardiac MRI without the need for external motion monitoring devices. Magn Reson Med 76:197-205, 2016.
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: Jing Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Noel C F Codella; Thanh D Nguyen; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Joseph Y Cheng; Tao Zhang; Nichanan Ruangwattanapaisarn; Marcus T Alley; Martin Uecker; John M Pauly; Michael Lustig; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Davide Piccini; Pierre Monney; Christophe Sierro; Simone Coppo; Gabriele Bonanno; Ruud B van Heeswijk; Jérôme Chaptinel; Gabriella Vincenti; Jonathan de Blois; Simon C Koestner; Tobias Rutz; Arne Littmann; Michael O Zenge; Juerg Schwitter; Matthias Stuber Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Grace M Nijm; Alan V Sahakian; Steven Swiryn; James C Carr; John J Sheehan; Andrew C Larson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Wenwen Jiang; Frank Ong; Kevin M Johnson; Scott K Nagle; Thomas A Hope; Michael Lustig; Peder E Z Larson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hassan Haji-Valizadeh; Jeremy D Collins; Pascale J Aouad; Ali M Serhal; Marc D Lindley; Jianing Pang; Nivedita K Naresh; James C Carr; Daniel Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Eddy Solomon; David S Rigie; Thomas Vahle; Jan Paška; Jan Bollenbeck; Daniel K Sodickson; Fernando E Boada; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Waqas B Khalid; Nadim Farhat; Linda Lavery; Josh Jarnagin; James P Delany; Kang Kim Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 2.998