Rapid prospective motion correction using free induction decay and stationary field probe navigators at 7T.
Saved in:
| Title: | Rapid prospective motion correction using free induction decay and stationary field probe navigators at 7T. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Serger, Matthias1,2 (AUTHOR), Stirnberg, Rüdiger1 (AUTHOR), Ehses, Philipp1 (AUTHOR), Stöcker, Tony1,2 (AUTHOR) tony.stoecker@dzne.de |
| Source: | Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Jul2025, Vol. 94 Issue 1, p105-118. 14p. |
| Subjects: | Time series analysis, Explorers, Workflow, Calibration |
| Abstract: | Purpose: MR‐based FID navigators (FIDnavs) do not require gradient pulses and are attractive for prospective motion correction (PMC) due to short acquisition times and high sampling rates. However, accuracy and precision are limited and depend on a separate calibration measurement. Besides FIDnavs, stationary NMR field probes are also capable of measuring local, motion‐induced field changes. In this work, a linear model is calibrated between field probe data and motion parameters analog to FIDnav calibration and both tracking methods are compared and combined for PMC. Methods: FIDnavs and field probe navigators were implemented in a fast 3D‐EPI sequence and calibrated by a linear model to realignment motion parameters of the 3D‐EPI time series. A workflow was established to correct head motion prospectively by FIDnavs, field probe navigators or a combination of both. Large motions were instructed to test the accuracy and the impact on image quality in 1mm3$$ 1\kern0.1667em {\mathrm{mm}}^3 $$ EPI data. Results: In a group of five subjects, FIDnavs demonstrated approximately doubled accuracy and precision in comparison with field probe navigators for large motions, especially nodding motions were tracked less accurately by field probes. A combination of both methods could not improve the accuracy consistently. Motion artifacts in high‐resolution data were reduced similarly by both PMC methods, although artifacts remained due to susceptibility‐induced B0 changes. Conclusion: Stationary field probe navigators can be calibrated equivalently as FIDnavs and enable rapid PMC of large and fast motions. Although they reveal decreased accuracy, their contrast‐independence facilitates the potential insertion into many sequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: MR‐based FID navigators (FIDnavs) do not require gradient pulses and are attractive for prospective motion correction (PMC) due to short acquisition times and high sampling rates. However, accuracy and precision are limited and depend on a separate calibration measurement. Besides FIDnavs, stationary NMR field probes are also capable of measuring local, motion‐induced field changes. In this work, a linear model is calibrated between field probe data and motion parameters analog to FIDnav calibration and both tracking methods are compared and combined for PMC. Methods: FIDnavs and field probe navigators were implemented in a fast 3D‐EPI sequence and calibrated by a linear model to realignment motion parameters of the 3D‐EPI time series. A workflow was established to correct head motion prospectively by FIDnavs, field probe navigators or a combination of both. Large motions were instructed to test the accuracy and the impact on image quality in 1mm3$$ 1\kern0.1667em {\mathrm{mm}}^3 $$ EPI data. Results: In a group of five subjects, FIDnavs demonstrated approximately doubled accuracy and precision in comparison with field probe navigators for large motions, especially nodding motions were tracked less accurately by field probes. A combination of both methods could not improve the accuracy consistently. Motion artifacts in high‐resolution data were reduced similarly by both PMC methods, although artifacts remained due to susceptibility‐induced B0 changes. Conclusion: Stationary field probe navigators can be calibrated equivalently as FIDnavs and enable rapid PMC of large and fast motions. Although they reveal decreased accuracy, their contrast‐independence facilitates the potential insertion into many sequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07403194 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mrm.30441 |
