Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions

Purpose To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. Methods The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.1487-1498
Hauptverfasser: Nijkamp, Jasper, Schermers, Bram, Schmitz, Sander, de Jonge, Sofieke, Kuhlmann, Koert, van der Heijden, Ferdinand, Sonke, Jan-Jakob, Ruers, Theo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1498
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1487
container_title International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery
container_volume 11
creator Nijkamp, Jasper
Schermers, Bram
Schmitz, Sander
de Jonge, Sofieke
Kuhlmann, Koert
van der Heijden, Ferdinand
Sonke, Jan-Jakob
Ruers, Theo
description Purpose To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. Methods The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. Results Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1 ∘ , except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4 ∘ errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1 ∘ up to 37 cm and 2 ∘ at 47 cm. Conclusions The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1 ∘ , the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1807079945</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1807079945</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-7c206f013e689fd6beb583e393d2ebb33d35081a6a2da529ac4190cd238d1dbe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EoqXwA1iQR5aAL87niCq-pEosMFuOfalcGjvYCVL_PS4pHVnuzvJ7j3QPIdfA7oCx8j4A5FmVMMgT4HGAEzKHqoCkyNL69DgDm5GLEDaMZXnJ83MyS4sKgFUwJ37pul56Y9e0d8EMxlkqrabOG7SDnN5KjV6qHXUt1aZt0ccviltUg3edXFscjKIBbXA-0NZ5OsT4556px1-0sQP677gVceGSnLVyG_Dq0Bfk4-nxffmSrN6eX5cPq0TxLBuSUqWsaBlwLKq61UWDTV5x5DXXKTYN55rn8QRZyFTLPK2lyqBmSqe80qAb5AtyO3F7775GDIPoTFC43UqLbgwCKlaysq6zPEZhiirvQvDYit6bTvqdACb2qsWkWkTVYq86lgW5OeDHpkN93PhzGwPpFAj9XgJ6sXGjt_Hkf6g_Cu2Mmw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1807079945</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Nijkamp, Jasper ; Schermers, Bram ; Schmitz, Sander ; de Jonge, Sofieke ; Kuhlmann, Koert ; van der Heijden, Ferdinand ; Sonke, Jan-Jakob ; Ruers, Theo</creator><creatorcontrib>Nijkamp, Jasper ; Schermers, Bram ; Schmitz, Sander ; de Jonge, Sofieke ; Kuhlmann, Koert ; van der Heijden, Ferdinand ; Sonke, Jan-Jakob ; Ruers, Theo</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. Methods The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. Results Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1 ∘ , except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4 ∘ errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1 ∘ up to 37 cm and 2 ∘ at 47 cm. Conclusions The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1 ∘ , the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1861-6410</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1861-6429</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26811081</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Calibration ; Computer Imaging ; Computer Science ; Electromagnetic Phenomena ; Health Informatics ; Humans ; Imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Orientation, Spatial ; Original Article ; Pattern Recognition and Graphics ; Radiology ; Software ; Surgery ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation ; Vision</subject><ispartof>International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.1487-1498</ispartof><rights>CARS 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-7c206f013e689fd6beb583e393d2ebb33d35081a6a2da529ac4190cd238d1dbe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-7c206f013e689fd6beb583e393d2ebb33d35081a6a2da529ac4190cd238d1dbe3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7523-5881</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26811081$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nijkamp, Jasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schermers, Bram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Sander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jonge, Sofieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuhlmann, Koert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Heijden, Ferdinand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonke, Jan-Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruers, Theo</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions</title><title>International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery</title><addtitle>Int J CARS</addtitle><addtitle>Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. Methods The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. Results Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1 ∘ , except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4 ∘ errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1 ∘ up to 37 cm and 2 ∘ at 47 cm. Conclusions The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1 ∘ , the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.</description><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Computer Imaging</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Electromagnetic Phenomena</subject><subject>Health Informatics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Orientation, Spatial</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pattern Recognition and Graphics</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</subject><subject>Vision</subject><issn>1861-6410</issn><issn>1861-6429</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhi0EoqXwA1iQR5aAL87niCq-pEosMFuOfalcGjvYCVL_PS4pHVnuzvJ7j3QPIdfA7oCx8j4A5FmVMMgT4HGAEzKHqoCkyNL69DgDm5GLEDaMZXnJ83MyS4sKgFUwJ37pul56Y9e0d8EMxlkqrabOG7SDnN5KjV6qHXUt1aZt0ccviltUg3edXFscjKIBbXA-0NZ5OsT4556px1-0sQP677gVceGSnLVyG_Dq0Bfk4-nxffmSrN6eX5cPq0TxLBuSUqWsaBlwLKq61UWDTV5x5DXXKTYN55rn8QRZyFTLPK2lyqBmSqe80qAb5AtyO3F7775GDIPoTFC43UqLbgwCKlaysq6zPEZhiirvQvDYit6bTvqdACb2qsWkWkTVYq86lgW5OeDHpkN93PhzGwPpFAj9XgJ6sXGjt_Hkf6g_Cu2Mmw</recordid><startdate>20160801</startdate><enddate>20160801</enddate><creator>Nijkamp, Jasper</creator><creator>Schermers, Bram</creator><creator>Schmitz, Sander</creator><creator>de Jonge, Sofieke</creator><creator>Kuhlmann, Koert</creator><creator>van der Heijden, Ferdinand</creator><creator>Sonke, Jan-Jakob</creator><creator>Ruers, Theo</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7523-5881</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160801</creationdate><title>Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions</title><author>Nijkamp, Jasper ; Schermers, Bram ; Schmitz, Sander ; de Jonge, Sofieke ; Kuhlmann, Koert ; van der Heijden, Ferdinand ; Sonke, Jan-Jakob ; Ruers, Theo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-7c206f013e689fd6beb583e393d2ebb33d35081a6a2da529ac4190cd238d1dbe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Computer Imaging</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Electromagnetic Phenomena</topic><topic>Health Informatics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Orientation, Spatial</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pattern Recognition and Graphics</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</topic><topic>Vision</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nijkamp, Jasper</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schermers, Bram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmitz, Sander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jonge, Sofieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuhlmann, Koert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Heijden, Ferdinand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sonke, Jan-Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruers, Theo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nijkamp, Jasper</au><au>Schermers, Bram</au><au>Schmitz, Sander</au><au>de Jonge, Sofieke</au><au>Kuhlmann, Koert</au><au>van der Heijden, Ferdinand</au><au>Sonke, Jan-Jakob</au><au>Ruers, Theo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions</atitle><jtitle>International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery</jtitle><stitle>Int J CARS</stitle><addtitle>Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg</addtitle><date>2016-08-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1487</spage><epage>1498</epage><pages>1487-1498</pages><issn>1861-6410</issn><eissn>1861-6429</eissn><abstract>Purpose To compare the position and orientation accuracy between using one 6-degree of freedom (DOF) electromagnetic (EM) sensor, or the position information of three 5DOF sensors within the scope of tumor tracking. Methods The position accuracy of Northern Digital Inc Aurora 5DOF and 6DOF sensors was determined for a table-top field generator (TTFG) up to a distance of 52 cm. For each sensor 716 positions were measured for 10 s at 15 Hz. Orientation accuracy was determined for each of the orthogonal axis at the TTFG distances of 17, 27, 37 and 47 cm. For the 6DOF sensors, orientation was determined for sensors in-line with the orientation axis, and perpendicular. 5DOF orientation accuracy was determined for a theoretical 4 cm tumor. An optical tracking system was used as reference. Results Position RMSE and jitter were comparable between the sensors and increasing with distance. Jitter was within 0.1 cm SD within 45 cm distance to the TTFG. Position RMSE was approximately 0.1 cm up to 32 cm distance, increasing to 0.4 cm at 52 cm distance. Orientation accuracy of the 6DOF sensor was within 1 ∘ , except when the sensor was in-line with the rotation axis perpendicular to the TTFG plane (4 ∘ errors at 47 cm). Orientation accuracy using 5DOF positions was within 1 ∘ up to 37 cm and 2 ∘ at 47 cm. Conclusions The position and orientation accuracy of a 6DOF sensor was comparable with a sensor configuration consisting of three 5DOF sensors. To achieve tracking accuracy within 1 mm and 1 ∘ , the distance to the TTFG should be limited to approximately 30 cm.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>26811081</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7523-5881</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1861-6410
ispartof International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.1487-1498
issn 1861-6410
1861-6429
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1807079945
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Calibration
Computer Imaging
Computer Science
Electromagnetic Phenomena
Health Informatics
Humans
Imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Orientation, Spatial
Original Article
Pattern Recognition and Graphics
Radiology
Software
Surgery
Surgery, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation
Vision
title Comparing position and orientation accuracy of different electromagnetic sensors for tracking during interventions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T05%3A49%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20position%20and%20orientation%20accuracy%20of%20different%20electromagnetic%20sensors%20for%20tracking%20during%20interventions&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20for%20computer%20assisted%20radiology%20and%20surgery&rft.au=Nijkamp,%20Jasper&rft.date=2016-08-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1487&rft.epage=1498&rft.pages=1487-1498&rft.issn=1861-6410&rft.eissn=1861-6429&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11548-015-1348-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1807079945%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1807079945&rft_id=info:pmid/26811081&rfr_iscdi=true