PURPOSE: Motion artifact limits the clinical translation of high-field MR. We present an optical prospective motion correction system for 7 Tesla MRI using a custom-built, within-coil camera to track an optical marker mounted on a subject. METHODS: The camera was constructed to fit between the transmit-receive coils with direct line of sight to a forehead-mounted marker, improving upon prior mouthpiece work at 7 Tesla MRI. We validated the system by acquiring a 3D-IR-FSPGR on a phantom with deliberate motion applied. The same 3D-IR-FSPGR and a 2D gradient echo were then acquired on 7 volunteers, with/without deliberate motion and with/without motion correction. Three neuroradiologists blindly assessed image quality. In 1 subject, an ultrahigh-resolution 2D gradient echo with 4 averages was acquired with motion correction. Four single-average acquisitions were then acquired serially, with the subject allowed to move between acquisitions. A fifth single-average 2D gradient echo was acquired following subject removal and reentry. RESULTS: In both the phantom and human subjects, deliberate and involuntary motion were well corrected. Despite marked levels of motion, high-quality images were produced without spurious artifacts. The quantitative ratings confirmed significant improvements in image quality in the absence and presence of deliberate motion across both acquisitions (P < .001). The system enabled ultrahigh-resolution visualization of the hippocampus during a long scan and robust alignment of serially acquired scans with interspersed movement. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the use of a within-coil camera to perform optical prospective motion correction and ultrahigh-resolution imaging at 7 Tesla MRI. The setup does not require a mouthpiece, which could improve accessibility of motion correction during 7 Tesla MRI exams.
PURPOSE: Motion artifact limits the clinical translation of high-field MR. We present an optical prospective motion correction system for 7 Tesla MRI using a custom-built, within-coil camera to track an optical marker mounted on a subject. METHODS: The camera was constructed to fit between the transmit-receive coils with direct line of sight to a forehead-mounted marker, improving upon prior mouthpiece work at 7 Tesla MRI. We validated the system by acquiring a 3D-IR-FSPGR on a phantom with deliberate motion applied. The same 3D-IR-FSPGR and a 2D gradient echo were then acquired on 7 volunteers, with/without deliberate motion and with/without motion correction. Three neuroradiologists blindly assessed image quality. In 1 subject, an ultrahigh-resolution 2D gradient echo with 4 averages was acquired with motion correction. Four single-average acquisitions were then acquired serially, with the subject allowed to move between acquisitions. A fifth single-average 2D gradient echo was acquired following subject removal and reentry. RESULTS: In both the phantom and human subjects, deliberate and involuntary motion were well corrected. Despite marked levels of motion, high-quality images were produced without spurious artifacts. The quantitative ratings confirmed significant improvements in image quality in the absence and presence of deliberate motion across both acquisitions (P < .001). The system enabled ultrahigh-resolution visualization of the hippocampus during a long scan and robust alignment of serially acquired scans with interspersed movement. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the use of a within-coil camera to perform optical prospective motion correction and ultrahigh-resolution imaging at 7 Tesla MRI. The setup does not require a mouthpiece, which could improve accessibility of motion correction during 7 Tesla MRI exams.
Authors: Jessica Schulz; Thomas Siegert; Enrico Reimer; Christian Labadie; Julian Maclaren; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Robert Turner Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Sherveen N Parivash; Maged Goubran; Brian D Mills; Paymon Rezaii; Christian Thaler; Dylan Wolman; Wei Bian; Lex A Mitchell; Brian Boldt; David Douglas; Eugene W Wilson; Jay Choi; Long Xie; Paul A Yushkevich; Phil DiGiacomo; Jitsupa Wongsripuemtet; Mansi Parekh; Jens Fiehler; Huy Do; Jaime Lopez; Jarrett Rosenberg; David Camarillo; Gerald Grant; Max Wintermark; Michael Zeineh Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Hendrik Mattern; Alessandro Sciarra; Falk Lüsebrink; Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Oliver Speck Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Johanna Vannesjo; Bertram J Wilm; Yolanda Duerst; Simon Gross; David O Brunner; Benjamin E Dietrich; Thomas Schmid; Christoph Barmet; Klaas P Pruessmann Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Karen Blackmon; Ruben Kuzniecky; William B Barr; Matija Snuderl; Werner Doyle; Orrin Devinsky; Thomas Thesen Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Boyd Kenkhuis; Laura E Jonkman; Marjolein Bulk; Mathijs Buijs; Baayla D C Boon; Femke H Bouwman; Jeroen J G Geurts; Wilma D J van de Berg; Louise van der Weerd Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Dean Tran; Phillip DiGiacomo; Donald E Born; Marios Georgiadis; Michael Zeineh Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: Giske Opheim; Anja van der Kolk; Karin Markenroth Bloch; Albert J Colon; Kathryn A Davis; Thomas R Henry; Jacobus F A Jansen; Stephen E Jones; Jullie W Pan; Karl Rössler; Joel M Stein; Maria C Strandberg; Siegfried Trattnig; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele; Maria Isabel Vargas; Irene Wang; Fabrice Bartolomei; Neda Bernasconi; Andrea Bernasconi; Boris Bernhardt; Isabella Björkman-Burtscher; Mirco Cosottini; Sandhitsu R Das; Lucie Hertz-Pannier; Sara Inati; Michael T Jurkiewicz; Ali R Khan; Shuli Liang; Ruoyun Emily Ma; Srinivasan Mukundan; Heath Pardoe; Lars H Pinborg; Jonathan R Polimeni; Jean-Philippe Ranjeva; Esther Steijvers; Steven Stufflebeam; Tim J Veersema; Alexandre Vignaud; Natalie Voets; Serge Vulliemoz; Christopher J Wiggins; Rong Xue; Renzo Guerrini; Maxime Guye Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 9.910