Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
      • JNMT Supplement
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
  • SNMMI
    • JNMT
    • JNM
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • Continuing Education
    • JNMT Podcast
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Institutional and Non-member
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNMT
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA Requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Watch or Listen to JNMT Podcast
  • Visit SNMMI on Facebook
  • Join SNMMI on LinkedIn
  • Follow SNMMI on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JNMT RSS feeds
Research ArticleIMAGING

Automated Patient Motion Detection and Correction in Dynamic Renal Scintigraphy

Russell D. Folks, Daya Manatunga, Ernest V. Garcia and Andrew T. Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology June 2011, 39 (2) 131-139; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.110.081893
Russell D. Folks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daya Manatunga
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ernest V. Garcia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew T. Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    (A) Columns of pixels are summed across width of each whole-kidney box, 128 pixels from top to bottom of image matrix. (B and C) Area of 2 kidneys is bounded by top of uppermost box and bottom of lowermost box, as shown by gray arrows. Pixel columns are summed into single column (B), in which brightest area reflects counts from both kidneys. Summed column can be represented by count profile (shown vertically in C), and profile for each frame is then compared. (D) Frame-to-frame shift detection takes place, with frame k as initial reference frame. Height of kidneys, from a to b, defines area under curve representing total counts in kidneys in this frame. Using same a and b locations, frame k + 1 is shifted upward 0–4 pixels and downward 1–4 pixels, in 0.25-pixel increments. Count total is taken from a to b and compared with total from k. Shift amount (lag) corresponding to total that most closely matches k gives shift of k + 1. Because lag can be as small as 0.25, predicted location of frame k + 1 is determined to within 0.25 pixel. k + 1 then becomes reference for frame k + 2, and sequence is repeated.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Detection of shifts in original images.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Detection of cumulative shift over any range of frames in original data.

  • FIGURE 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4.

    Detection of simulated shifts of various types and magnitudes. Shifts that are present in original data are not subtracted. (A) Plot of percentage motion detected for fractional- and whole-pixel shifts. (B) Plot of percentage motion detected for abrupt and continuous shifts.

  • FIGURE 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 5.

    Example patient study shown in visual motion review tool. (A) Below each kidney image is corresponding linogram for original images (left column), images with simulated shift (center column), and motion-corrected images (right column). Slider control allows review of any image frame, and current frame position is indicated by vertical line on all linograms. (B) Enlarged view of linogram with image shifts, without vertical line marker. This tool allows user to select any of 86 patients, and any of 10 artificial shifts, for visual comparison of uncorrected and corrected images and linograms.

  • FIGURE 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 6.

    Image frames 4 min (A) and 24 min (B) after injection of 99mTc-MAG3. (A) First frame of range that underwent motion detection. This patient shows little uptake of 99mTc-MAG3 in left kidney at 4 min. In profile generated by summing pixel columns in both kidneys, most counts are contributed by right kidney, causing higher profile peak. (B) At 24 min, right kidney has excreted 99mTc-MAG3 into bladder, and more counts in profile are contributed by left kidney, which retains 99mTc-MAG3. Because profile peak is thus lower than in A, vertical motion may be falsely implied.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Simulated Shifts Introduced into Image Frame

    ShiftMinimum shiftMaximum shiftStart frameNumber of framesInitial shiftReturn shift
    Abrupt
     Whole-pixel11447↑↓
    33592↓↑
    22647↑↓
     Fractional2.52.5597↓↑
    3.53.5782↑↓
    Gradual
     Whole-pixel14595↓↑
    13694↑↓
     Fractional0.251.5597↑↓
    0.53497↑↓
    0.251595↓↑
    • ↑ = shift up; ↓ = shift down.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Detection of Simulated Motion

    Type of shiftMagnitudeyy + x
    Fractional0.257776
    0.57170
    1.57373
    2.57870
    3.57273
    Whole-pixel17676
    27876
    37972
    47474
    Abrupt17373
    27876
    2.57870
    38173
    3.57273
    Continuous0.257776
    0.57170
    17777
    1.57373
    • Data are magnitude of pixel shift and percentage of frames shifted for vertical motion (y) and vertical plus horizontal motion (y + x).

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Percentage Count Recovery After Motion Correction

    ParameterShift 4Shift 5Shift 6Shift 8Shift 10
    Mean59.872.859.851.751.6
    SD7.27.512.813.516.8
    Maximum75.886.783.872.469.0
    Minimum42.050.920.414.20.0
    • 100% count recovery implies that counts in kidney ROI after motion correction are same as before motion took place.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: 39 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
Vol. 39, Issue 2
June 1, 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Automated Patient Motion Detection and Correction in Dynamic Renal Scintigraphy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology web site.
Citation Tools
Automated Patient Motion Detection and Correction in Dynamic Renal Scintigraphy
Russell D. Folks, Daya Manatunga, Ernest V. Garcia, Andrew T. Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2011, 39 (2) 131-139; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.110.081893

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Automated Patient Motion Detection and Correction in Dynamic Renal Scintigraphy
Russell D. Folks, Daya Manatunga, Ernest V. Garcia, Andrew T. Taylor
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Jun 2011, 39 (2) 131-139; DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.110.081893
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Early 10-Minute Postinjection [18F]F-FAPI-42 uEXPLORER Total-Body PET/CT Scanning Protocol for Staging Lung Cancer Using HYPER Iterative Reconstruction
  • Single- Versus Dual-Time-Point Imaging for Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloid Using 99mTc-Pyrophosphate
  • Robustness of 18F-FDG PET Radiomic Features in Lung Cancer: Impact of Advanced Reconstruction Algorithm
Show more Imaging

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire