Uten Yarach1,2, Chaiya Luengviriya3, Daniel Stucht4, Frank Godenschweger4, Peter Schulze4,5, Oliver Speck4,6,5,7. 1. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44 (Haus 65), 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. uten.yarach@st.ovgu.de. 2. Department of Radiological Technology, Chiangmai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. uten.yarach@st.ovgu.de. 3. Department of Physics, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44 (Haus 65), 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 6. Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany. 7. Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prospective motion correction can effectively fix the imaging volume of interest. For large motion, this can lead to relative motion of coil sensitivities, distortions associated with imaging gradients and B 0 field variations. This work accounts for the B 0 field change due to subject movement, and proposes a method for correcting tissue magnetic susceptibility-related distortion in prospective motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The B 0 field shifts at the different head orientations were characterized. A volunteer performed large motion with prospective motion correction enabled. The acquired data were divided into multiple groups according to the object positions. The correction of B 0-related distortion was applied to each group of data individually via augmented sensitivity encoding with additionally integrated gradient nonlinearity correction. RESULTS: The relative motion of the gradients, B 0 field and coil sensitivities in prospective motion correction results in residual spatial distortion, blurring, and coil artifacts. These errors can be mitigated by the proposed method. Moreover, iterative conjugate gradient optimization with regularization provided superior results with smaller RMSE in comparison to standard conjugate gradient. CONCLUSION: The combined correction of B 0-related distortion and gradient nonlinearity leads to a reduction of residual motion artifacts in prospective motion correction data.
OBJECTIVE: Prospective motion correction can effectively fix the imaging volume of interest. For large motion, this can lead to relative motion of coil sensitivities, distortions associated with imaging gradients and B 0 field variations. This work accounts for the B 0 field change due to subject movement, and proposes a method for correcting tissue magnetic susceptibility-related distortion in prospective motion correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The B 0 field shifts at the different head orientations were characterized. A volunteer performed large motion with prospective motion correction enabled. The acquired data were divided into multiple groups according to the object positions. The correction of B 0-related distortion was applied to each group of data individually via augmented sensitivity encoding with additionally integrated gradient nonlinearity correction. RESULTS: The relative motion of the gradients, B 0 field and coil sensitivities in prospective motion correction results in residual spatial distortion, blurring, and coil artifacts. These errors can be mitigated by the proposed method. Moreover, iterative conjugate gradient optimization with regularization provided superior results with smaller RMSE in comparison to standard conjugate gradient. CONCLUSION: The combined correction of B 0-related distortion and gradient nonlinearity leads to a reduction of residual motion artifacts in prospective motion correction data.
Authors: Yolanda Duerst; Bertram J Wilm; Benjamin E Dietrich; S Johanna Vannesjo; Christoph Barmet; Thomas Schmid; David O Brunner; Klaas P Pruessmann Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Aaron T Hess; M Dylan Tisdall; Ovidiu C Andronesi; Ernesta M Meintjes; André J W van der Kouwe Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Alexandre Boutet; Robert Gramer; Christopher J Steele; Gavin J B Elias; Jürgen Germann; Ricardo Maciel; Walter Kucharczyk; Ludvic Zrinzo; Andres M Lozano; Alfonso Fasano Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Jiaen Liu; Jacco A de Zwart; Peter van Gelderen; Joseph Murphy-Boesch; Jeff H Duyn Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 4.668