Martin Eschelbach1, Ali Aghaeifar1, Jonas Bause1, Jonas Handwerker2,3, Jens Anders2,3, Eva-Maria Engel4, Axel Thielscher1,5,6, Klaus Scheffler1,7. 1. Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen, Germany. 2. Institute of Microelectronics, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 3. Institute of Smart Sensors, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 4. Department of Prosthodontics, Center of Dentistry, Oral Medicine, and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Tuebingen, Germany. 5. Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. 6. DRCMR, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark. 7. Department for Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare prospective head motion correction and motion tracking abilities of two tracking systems: Active NMR field probes and a Moiré phase tracking camera system using an optical marker. METHODS: Both tracking systems were used simultaneously on human subjects. The prospective head motion correction was compared in an MP2RAGE and a gradient echo sequence. In addition, the motion tracking trajectories for three subjects were compared against each other and their correlation and deviations were analyzed. RESULTS: With both tracking systems motion artifacts were visibly reduced. The precision of the field probe system was on the order of 50 µm for translations and 0.03° for rotations while the camera's was approximately 5 µm and 0.007°. The comparison of the measured trajectories showed close correlation and an average absolute deviation below 500 µm and 0.5°. CONCLUSION: This study presents the first in vivo comparison between NMR field probes and Moiré phase tracking. For the gradient echo images, the field probes had a similar motion correction performance as the optical tracking system. For the MP2RAGE measurement, however, the camera yielded better results. Still, both tracking systems substantially decreased image artifacts in the presence of subject motion. Thus, the motion tracking modality should be chosen according to the specific requirements of the experiment while considering the desired image resolution, refresh rate, and head coil constraints.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare prospective head motion correction and motion tracking abilities of two tracking systems: Active NMR field probes and a Moiré phase tracking camera system using an optical marker. METHODS: Both tracking systems were used simultaneously on human subjects. The prospective head motion correction was compared in an MP2RAGE and a gradient echo sequence. In addition, the motion tracking trajectories for three subjects were compared against each other and their correlation and deviations were analyzed. RESULTS: With both tracking systems motion artifacts were visibly reduced. The precision of the field probe system was on the order of 50 µm for translations and 0.03° for rotations while the camera's was approximately 5 µm and 0.007°. The comparison of the measured trajectories showed close correlation and an average absolute deviation below 500 µm and 0.5°. CONCLUSION: This study presents the first in vivo comparison between NMR field probes and Moiré phase tracking. For the gradient echo images, the field probes had a similar motion correction performance as the optical tracking system. For the MP2RAGE measurement, however, the camera yielded better results. Still, both tracking systems substantially decreased image artifacts in the presence of subject motion. Thus, the motion tracking modality should be chosen according to the specific requirements of the experiment while considering the desired image resolution, refresh rate, and head coil constraints.
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
Authors: Falk Lüsebrink; Hendrik Mattern; Renat Yakupov; Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Mohammad Ashtarayeh; Steffen Oeltze-Jafra; Oliver Speck Journal: Sci Data Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Wolfgang Bogner; In-Young Choi; Aaron T Hess; Phil Lee; Ernesta M Meintjes; M Dylan Tisdall; Maxim Zaitzev; André van der Kouwe Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.044