Chin-Cheng Chan1,2, Justin P Haldar1,2. 1. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Signal and Image Processing Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Modern methods for MR image reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping are becoming increasingly nonlinear, black-box, and at risk of "hallucination." These trends mean that traditional tools for judging confidence in an image (visual quality assessment, point-spread functions (PSFs), g-factor maps, etc.) are less helpful than before. This paper describes and evaluates an approach that can help with assessing confidence in images produced by arbitrary nonlinear methods. THEORY AND METHODS: We propose to characterize nonlinear methods by examining the images they produce before and after applying controlled perturbations to the measured data. This results in functions known as local perturbation responses (LPRs) that can provide useful insight into sensitivity, spatial resolution, and aliasing characteristics. LPRs can be viewed as generalizations of classical PSFs, and are are very flexible-they can be applied to arbitary nonlinear methods and arbitrary datasets across a range of different reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping applications. Importantly, LPRs do not require a ground truth image. RESULTS: Impulse-based and checkerboard-pattern LPRs are demonstrated in image reconstruction and denoising scenarios. We observe that these LPRs provide insights into spatial resolution, signal leakage, and aliasing that are not available with other methods. We also observe that popular reference-based image quality metrics (eg, mean-squared error and structural similarity) do not always correlate with good LPR characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: LPRs are a useful tool that can be used to characterize and assess confidence in nonlinear MR methods, and provide insights that are distinct from and complementary to existing quality assessments.
PURPOSE: Modern methods for MR image reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping are becoming increasingly nonlinear, black-box, and at risk of "hallucination." These trends mean that traditional tools for judging confidence in an image (visual quality assessment, point-spread functions (PSFs), g-factor maps, etc.) are less helpful than before. This paper describes and evaluates an approach that can help with assessing confidence in images produced by arbitrary nonlinear methods. THEORY AND METHODS: We propose to characterize nonlinear methods by examining the images they produce before and after applying controlled perturbations to the measured data. This results in functions known as local perturbation responses (LPRs) that can provide useful insight into sensitivity, spatial resolution, and aliasing characteristics. LPRs can be viewed as generalizations of classical PSFs, and are are very flexible-they can be applied to arbitary nonlinear methods and arbitrary datasets across a range of different reconstruction, denoising, and parameter mapping applications. Importantly, LPRs do not require a ground truth image. RESULTS: Impulse-based and checkerboard-pattern LPRs are demonstrated in image reconstruction and denoising scenarios. We observe that these LPRs provide insights into spatial resolution, signal leakage, and aliasing that are not available with other methods. We also observe that popular reference-based image quality metrics (eg, mean-squared error and structural similarity) do not always correlate with good LPR characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: LPRs are a useful tool that can be used to characterize and assess confidence in nonlinear MR methods, and provide insights that are distinct from and complementary to existing quality assessments.
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Florian Knoll; Tullie Murrell; Anuroop Sriram; Nafissa Yakubova; Jure Zbontar; Michael Rabbat; Aaron Defazio; Matthew J Muckley; Daniel K Sodickson; C Lawrence Zitnick; Michael P Recht Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962