Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods

Test-retest of automated image segmentation algorithms (FSL FAST, FSL FIRST, and FREESURFER) are computed on magnetic resonance images from 12 unsedated children aged 9.4±2.6 years ([min,max] ​= ​[6.5 years, 13.8 years]) using different approaches to motion correction (prospective versus retrospecti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Steven R. Kecskemeti, Andrew L. Alexander
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2020-04-01
Series:NeuroImage
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919310857
id doaj-c7d29688489a4c359941993572c09938
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c7d29688489a4c359941993572c099382020-11-25T02:59:34ZengElsevierNeuroImage1095-95722020-04-01209116494Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methodsSteven R. Kecskemeti0Andrew L. Alexander1Corresponding author.; University of Wisconsin-Madison, USAUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, USATest-retest of automated image segmentation algorithms (FSL FAST, FSL FIRST, and FREESURFER) are computed on magnetic resonance images from 12 unsedated children aged 9.4±2.6 years ([min,max] ​= ​[6.5 years, 13.8 years]) using different approaches to motion correction (prospective versus retrospective). The prospective technique, PROMO MPRAGE, dynamically estimates motion using specially acquired navigator images and adjusts the remaining acquisition accordingly, whereas the retrospective technique, MPnRAGE, uses a self-navigation property to retrospectively estimate and account for motion during image reconstruction. To increase the likelihood and range of motions, participants heads were not stabilized with padding during repeated scans. When motion was negligible both techniques had similar performance. When motion was not negligible, the automated image segmentation and anatomical labeling software tools showed the most consistent performance with the retrospectively corrected MPnRAGE technique (≥80% volume overlaps for 15 of 16 regions for FIRST and FREESURFER, with greater than 90% volume overlaps for 12 regions with FIRST and 11 regions with FREESURFER). Prospectively corrected MPRAGE with linear view-ordering also demonstrated lower performance than MPnRAGE without retrospective motion correction.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919310857MPnRAGEMotion correctionPROMOSegmentationFIRSTFreesurfer
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Steven R. Kecskemeti
Andrew L. Alexander
spellingShingle Steven R. Kecskemeti
Andrew L. Alexander
Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
NeuroImage
MPnRAGE
Motion correction
PROMO
Segmentation
FIRST
Freesurfer
author_facet Steven R. Kecskemeti
Andrew L. Alexander
author_sort Steven R. Kecskemeti
title Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
title_short Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
title_full Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
title_fullStr Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
title_full_unstemmed Test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: A comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
title_sort test-retest of automated segmentation with different motion correction strategies: a comparison of prospective versus retrospective methods
publisher Elsevier
series NeuroImage
issn 1095-9572
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Test-retest of automated image segmentation algorithms (FSL FAST, FSL FIRST, and FREESURFER) are computed on magnetic resonance images from 12 unsedated children aged 9.4±2.6 years ([min,max] ​= ​[6.5 years, 13.8 years]) using different approaches to motion correction (prospective versus retrospective). The prospective technique, PROMO MPRAGE, dynamically estimates motion using specially acquired navigator images and adjusts the remaining acquisition accordingly, whereas the retrospective technique, MPnRAGE, uses a self-navigation property to retrospectively estimate and account for motion during image reconstruction. To increase the likelihood and range of motions, participants heads were not stabilized with padding during repeated scans. When motion was negligible both techniques had similar performance. When motion was not negligible, the automated image segmentation and anatomical labeling software tools showed the most consistent performance with the retrospectively corrected MPnRAGE technique (≥80% volume overlaps for 15 of 16 regions for FIRST and FREESURFER, with greater than 90% volume overlaps for 12 regions with FIRST and 11 regions with FREESURFER). Prospectively corrected MPRAGE with linear view-ordering also demonstrated lower performance than MPnRAGE without retrospective motion correction.
topic MPnRAGE
Motion correction
PROMO
Segmentation
FIRST
Freesurfer
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919310857
work_keys_str_mv AT stevenrkecskemeti testretestofautomatedsegmentationwithdifferentmotioncorrectionstrategiesacomparisonofprospectiveversusretrospectivemethods
AT andrewlalexander testretestofautomatedsegmentationwithdifferentmotioncorrectionstrategiesacomparisonofprospectiveversusretrospectivemethods
_version_ 1724701538824224768