4.5 Article

Prospective motion correction using tracking coils

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 749-759

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24310

Keywords

intracavity coil imaging; prospective motion correction; cardiac MRI; tracking coils

Funding

  1. NIH [P41 RR019703, R01 CA11288, R01 CA111981-01, AHA 10SDG261039]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intracavity imaging coils provide higher signal-to-noise than surface coils and have the potential to provide higher spatial resolution in shorter acquisition times. However, images from these coils suffer from physiologically induced motion artifacts, as both the anatomy and the coils move during image acquisition. We developed prospective motion-correction techniques for intracavity imaging using an array of tracking coils. The system had <50 ms latency between tracking and imaging, so that the images from the intracavity coil were acquired in a frame of reference defined by the tracking array rather than by the system's gradient coils. Two-dimensional gradient-recalled and three-dimensional electrocardiogram-gated inversion-recovery-fast-gradient-echo sequences were tested with prospective motion correction using ex vivo hearts placed on a moving platform simulating both respiratory and cardiac motion. Human abdominal tests were subsequently conducted. The tracking array provided a positional accuracy of 0.7 +/- 0.5 mm, 0.6 +/- 0.4 mm, and 0.1 +/- 0.1 mm along the X, Y, and Z directions at a rate of 20 frames-per-second. The ex vivo and human experiments showed significant image quality improvements for both in-plane and through-plane motion correction, which although not performed in intracavity imaging, demonstrates the feasibility of implementing such a motion-correction system in a future design of combined tracking and intracavity coil. Magn Reson Med, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available