Intra‐MRI Head Motion Tracking and Correction: A Quantitative In Vivo Evaluation Framework

ABSTRACT Despite numerous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head motion mitigation strategies, the lack of rigorous evaluation limits their optimization and clinical adoption. We propose an in vivo framework combining a visual instruction system for reproducible head motion with reference standard interpose displacement estimation to assess intra‐MRI tracking accuracy and precision. Its utility is demonstrated by comparing a markerless optical system (MOS) and a fat‐signal navigator (FatNav). Six participants underwent 3T T1‐weighted brain MRI with a FatNav module, performing visually guided 2° and 4° head rotations around the X ‐ and Z ‐axes using MOS feedback. T1‐weighted images were acquired at seven distinct head poses. MOS and FatNav motion estimates were compared against rigid registration of the T1‐weighted images, which served as the reference standard. MOS‐ and FatNav‐corrected images for the three successive head rotations were also compared using the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR), and a focus measure. FatNav accuracy was inferior for translations ( p < 0.001) and 2°–4° rotations but improved to match MOS for subtle pitch + and yaw + , even surpassing it for subtle yaw − . Meanwhile, MOS precision was higher for yaw + than yaw − ( p < 0.001) but inferior to FatNav for pitch + ( p = 0.041). MOS better restored T1‐weighted image fidelity, yielding higher SSIM, PSNR, and focus ( p < 0.01). Notably, the framework detected a subtle improvement in FatNav performance with neck masking, an effect uncaptured by conventional image quality metrics. In conclusion, while image quality metrics suggested superior overall correction with MOS, our framework provided a more detailed characterization of in vivo performance differences.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NMR in Biomedicine
Published
2026-08-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.70368
Primary Topic
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Intra‐MRI Head Motion Tracking and Correction: A Quantitative In Vivo Evaluation Framework

Bassem Hiba, James John Bonaiuto, Thomas Troalen, Holly Rayson et al.
NMR in Biomedicine
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
article

Intra‐MRI Head Motion Tracking and Correction: A Quantitative In Vivo Evaluation Framework

Bassem Hiba, James John Bonaiuto, Thomas Troalen, Holly Rayson, Nathalie Richard, Thomas Gaaß, Franck Lamberton, Jakob M. Slipsager, Robert Frost, André van der Kouwe, Zakaria Zariry
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite numerous magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head motion mitigation strategies, the lack of rigorous evaluation limits their optimization and clinical adoption. We propose an in vivo framework combining a visual instruction system for reproducible head motion with reference standard interpose displacement estimation to assess intra‐MRI tracking accuracy and precision. Its utility is demonstrated by comparing a markerless optical system (MOS) and a fat‐signal navigator (FatNav). Six participants underwent 3T T1‐weighted brain MRI with a FatNav module, performing visually guided 2° and 4° head rotations around the X ‐ and Z ‐axes using MOS feedback. T1‐weighted images were acquired at seven distinct head poses. MOS and FatNav motion estimates were compared against rigid registration of the T1‐weighted images, which served as the reference standard. MOS‐ and FatNav‐corrected images for the three successive head rotations were also compared using the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), peak signal‐to‐noise ratio (PSNR), and a focus measure. FatNav accuracy was inferior for translations ( p < 0.001) and 2°–4° rotations but improved to match MOS for subtle pitch + and yaw + , even surpassing it for subtle yaw − . Meanwhile, MOS precision was higher for yaw + than yaw − ( p < 0.001) but inferior to FatNav for pitch + ( p = 0.041). MOS better restored T1‐weighted image fidelity, yielding higher SSIM, PSNR, and focus ( p < 0.01). Notably, the framework detected a subtle improvement in FatNav performance with neck masking, an effect uncaptured by conventional image quality metrics. In conclusion, while image quality metrics suggested superior overall correction with MOS, our framework provided a more detailed characterization of in vivo performance differences.

NMR in BiomedicineVol. 39(9)
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (FR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Harvard University (US), Inserm (FR), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Centre d'Exploration et de Recherche Médicale par Emission de Positons (FR), Center for Clinical & Basic Research (DK), Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (US), Siemens (France) (FR), Institut des Sciences Cognitives (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.