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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.1487-1498 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |