UNLABELLED: Patient motion remains a significant source of unsatisfactory cardiac SPECT examinations. The extent to which image recovery can be achieved with correction algorithms is unknown. METHODS: Nine subjects who had completed motion-free redistribution 201Tlcardiac SPECT subsequently underwent simultaneous dual-isotope (201Tl/99mTc) SPECT with a 99mTc cutaneous point source, while the imaging table was subjected to predefined nonreturning y-translation movements. Cardiac reconstructions, marker reconstructions and marker-compressed dynamic images were generated from the raw data after applying the following correction methods: diverging squares, cross-correlation of the cardiac data and cross-correlation of the marker. RESULTS: Marker cross-correlation performed significantly better than all other methods with good-excellent results in all evaluations. This compared with good-excellent results in none of 27 for the raw data, in 13 of 27 for cardiac cross-correlation and in 7 of 27 for diverging squares (p < 10(-5)). The superiority of the marker-based method was confirmed on analysis of bullseye difference maps and quantitation of residual motion in the point-source data. CONCLUSION: Motion artifacts can accurately be detected and corrected using cross-correlation of an external point-source. Furthermore, this technique provides useful independent information on the degree of image recovery.
UNLABELLED: Patient motion remains a significant source of unsatisfactory cardiac SPECT examinations. The extent to which image recovery can be achieved with correction algorithms is unknown. METHODS: Nine subjects who had completed motion-free redistribution 201Tlcardiac SPECT subsequently underwent simultaneous dual-isotope (201Tl/99mTc) SPECT with a 99mTc cutaneous point source, while the imaging table was subjected to predefined nonreturning y-translation movements. Cardiac reconstructions, marker reconstructions and marker-compressed dynamic images were generated from the raw data after applying the following correction methods: diverging squares, cross-correlation of the cardiac data and cross-correlation of the marker. RESULTS: Marker cross-correlation performed significantly better than all other methods with good-excellent results in all evaluations. This compared with good-excellent results in none of 27 for the raw data, in 13 of 27 for cardiac cross-correlation and in 7 of 27 for diverging squares (p < 10(-5)). The superiority of the marker-based method was confirmed on analysis of bullseye difference maps and quantitation of residual motion in the point-source data. CONCLUSION: Motion artifacts can accurately be detected and corrected using cross-correlation of an external point-source. Furthermore, this technique provides useful independent information on the degree of image recovery.
Authors: Bing Feng; Howard C Gifford; Richard D Beach; Guido Boening; Michael A Gennert; Michael A King Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: B Feng; P P Bruyant; P H Pretorius; R D Beach; H C Gifford; J Dey; M Gennert; M A King Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: Michael A King; Joyoni Dey; Karen Johnson; Paul Dasari; Joyeeta M Mukherjee; Joseph E McNamara; Arda Konik; Cliff Lindsay; Shaokuan Zheng; Dennis Coughlin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Alexandru Naum; Marko S Laaksonen; Helena Tuunanen; Vesa Oikonen; Mika Teräs; Jukka Kemppainen; Mikko J Järvisalo; Pirjo Nuutila; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-09-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J M Links; L C Becker; P Rigo; R Taillefer; L Hanelin; F Anstett; D Burckhardt; L Mixon Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2000 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952