ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Rapid prospective motion correction using free induction decay and stationary field probe navigators at 7T.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Head Motion Correction in T1- and T2-Weighted Long Echo Train Sequences Using Servo Navigation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Motion- and Field-Robust Mesoscopic Whole-BrainMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Rapid prospective motion correction using free induction decay and stationary field probe navigators at 7T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMR-based FID navigators (FIDnavs) do not require gradient pulses and are attractive for prospective motion correction (PMC) due to short acquisition times and high sampling rates. However, accuracy and precision are limited and depend on a separate calibration measurement. Besides FIDnavs, stationary NMR field probes are also capable of measuring local, motion-induced field changes. In this work, a linear model is calibrated between field probe data and motion parameters analog to FIDnav calibration and both tracking methods are compared and combined for PMC.
methodsFIDnavs and field probe navigators were implemented in a fast 3D-EPI sequence and calibrated by a linear model to realignment motion parameters of the 3D-EPI time series. A workflow was established to correct head motion prospectively by FIDnavs, field probe navigators or a combination of both. Large motions were instructed to test the accuracy and the impact on image quality in
resultsIn a group of five subjects, FIDnavs demonstrated approximately doubled accuracy and precision in comparison with field probe navigators for large motions, especially nodding motions were tracked less accurately by field probes. A combination of both methods could not improve the accuracy consistently. Motion artifacts in high-resolution data were reduced similarly by both PMC methods, although artifacts remained due to susceptibility-induced B0 changes.
conclusionStationary field probe navigators can be calibrated equivalently as FIDnavs and enable rapid PMC of large and fast motions. Although they reveal decreased accuracy, their contrast-independence facilitates the potential insertion into many sequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.