Evaluation of three 3D US calibration methods

Johann Hummel; Marcus Kaar; Rainer Hoffmann; Amon Bhatia; Wolfgang Birkfellner; Michael Figl

doi:10.1117/12.2007365

15 March 2013 Evaluation of three 3D US calibration methods

Johann Hummel, Marcus Kaar, Rainer Hoffmann, Amon Bhatia, Wolfgang Birkfellner, Michael Figl

Proceedings Volume 8671, Medical Imaging 2013: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling; 86712I (2013) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2007365
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2013, Lake Buena Vista (Orlando Area), Florida, United States

Abstract

With the introduction of 3D US image devices the demand for accurate and fast 3D calibration methods arose. We implemented three different calibration methods and compared the calibration results in terms of fiducial registration error (FRE) and target registration error (TRE). The three calibration methods included a multi-points phantom (MP), a feature based model (FM) and a membrane model (MM). With respect to the sphere method a simple point-to-point registration was applied. For the feature based model we employed a phantom consisting of spheres, pyramids and cones. These objects were imaged from different angles and a 3D3D registration was applied for all possible image combinations. The last method was accomplished by imaging a simple membrane which allows for calculation of the calibration matrix. For a first evaluation we computed the FRE for each method. To assess the calibration success on real patient data we used ten 3D3D registrations between images from the prostate. The FRE for the sphere method amounted to 1.40 mm, for the figure method to 1.05 mm and with respect to the membrane method to 1.12 mm. The deviation arising from ten 3D3D patient registration were 3.44 mm (MP), 2.93 mm (FM)and 2.84 mm (MM). The MM revealed to be the most accurate of the evaluated procedure while the MP has shown significant higher errors. The results from FM were close to the one from MM and also significant better than the one with the SM. Between FM and MM no significant difference was to detect.

Citation Download Citation

Johann Hummel, Marcus Kaar, Rainer Hoffmann, Amon Bhatia, Wolfgang Birkfellner, and Michael Figl "Evaluation of three 3D US calibration methods", Proc. SPIE 8671, Medical Imaging 2013: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling, 86712I (15 March 2013); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2007365

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available