HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Montgomery, A. J. Articles by Grasby, P. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Montgomery, A. J. Articles by Grasby, P. M.

Correction of Head Movement on PET Studies: Comparison of Methods

¹ CSC–MRC Cyclotron Unit, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and ² Hammersmith Imanet, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Andrew J. Montgomery, MbBChir, PhD, CSC–MRC Cyclotron Unit, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital, DuCane Rd., London W12 0NN, United Kingdom. E-mail: andrew.montgomery{at}imperial.ac.uk

Head movement presents a continuing problem in PET studies. Head restraint minimizes movement but is unreliable, resulting in the need to develop alternative strategies. These include frame-by-frame (FBF) realignment or use of motion tracking (MT) during the scan to realign PET acquisition data. Here we present a comparative analysis of these 2 methods of motion correction. Methods: Eight volunteers were examined at rest using ¹¹C-raclopride PET with the radioligand administered as a bolus followed by constant infusion to achieve steady state. Binding potential (BP) was estimated using the ratio method during 2 periods of the scan at steady state. Head movement was compensated by using coregistration between frames (FBF) and 3 methods using MT measurements of head position acquired with a commercially available optical tracking system. Results: All methods of realignment improved test–retest reliability and noise characteristics of the raw data, with important consequences for the power to detect small changes in radiotracer binding, and the potential to reduce false-positive and false-negative results. MT methods were superior to FBF realignment using coregistration on some indices. Conclusion: Such methods have considerable potential to improve the reliability of PET data with important implications for the numbers of volunteers required to test hypotheses.

Key Words: Key words PET • ¹¹C-raclopride • movement • test–retest • striatum

COPYRIGHT © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2006 47: 9a-10a. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Sawamoto, P. Piccini, G. Hotton, N. Pavese, K. Thielemans, and D. J. Brooks Cognitive deficits and striato-frontal dopamine release in Parkinson's disease Brain, May 1, 2008; 131(5): 1294 - 1302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]