The Relative Impact of Ghosting and Noise on the Perceived Quality of MR Images

Effects of prospective motion correction on perivascular spaces at 7T MRI evaluated using motion artifact simulation

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of prospective motion correction (PMC) is often evaluated by comparing artifacts in images acquired with and without PMC (NoPMC). However, such an approach is not applicable in clinical setting due to unavailability of NoPMC images. We aim to develop a simulation approach for demonstrating the ability of fat-navigator-based PMC in improving perivascular space (PVS) visibility in T2-weighted MRI.

METHODS

MRI datasets from two earlier studies were used for motion artifact simulation and evaluating PMC, including T2-weighted NoPMC and PMC images. To simulate motion artifacts, k-space data at motion-perturbed positions were calculated from artifact-free images using nonuniform Fourier transform and misplaced onto the Cartesian grid before inverse Fourier transform. The simulation's ability to reproduce motion-induced blurring, ringing, and ghosting artifacts was evaluated using sharpness at lateral ventricle/white matter boundary, ringing artifact magnitude in the Fourier spectrum, and background noise, respectively. PVS volume fraction in white matter was employed to reflect its visibility.

RESULTS

In simulation, sharpness, PVS volume fraction, and background noise exhibited significant negative correlations with motion score. Significant correlations were found in sharpness, ringing artifact magnitude, and PVS volume fraction between simulated and real NoPMC images (p ≤ 0.006). In contrast, such correlations were reduced and nonsignificant between simulated and real PMC images (p ≥ 0.48), suggesting reduction of motion effects with PMC.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed simulation approach is an effective tool to study the effects of motion and PMC on PVS visibility. PMC may reduce the systematic bias of PVS volume fraction caused by motion artifacts.

Comparative study of the methodologies used for subjective medical image quality assessment

Healthcare professionals have been increasingly viewing medical images and videos in their routine clinical practice, and this in a wide variety of environments. Both the perception and interpretation of medical visual information, across all branches of practice or medical specialties (e.g. diagnostic, therapeutic, or surgical medicine), career stages, and practice settings (e.g. emergency care), appear to be critical for patient care. However, medical images and videos are not self-explanatory and, therefore, need to be interpreted by humans, i.e. medical experts. In addition, various types of degradations and artifacts may appear during image acquisition or processing, and consequently affect medical imaging data. Such distortions tend to impact viewers' quality of experience, as well as their clinical practice. It is accordingly essential to better understand how medical experts perceive the quality of visual content. Thankfully, progress has been made in the recent literature towards such understanding. In this article, we present an up-to-date state-of the-art of relatively recent (i.e. not older than ten years old) existing studies on the subjective quality assessment of medical images and videos, as well as research works using task-based approaches. Furthermore, we discuss the merits and drawbacks of the methodologies used, and we provide recommendations about experimental designs and statistical processes to evaluate the perception of medical images and videos for future studies, which could then be used to optimise the visual experience of image readers in real clinical practice. Finally, we tackle the issue of the lack of available annotated medical image and video quality databases, which appear to be indispensable for the development of new dedicated objective metrics.

Influence of study design on digital pathology image quality evaluation: the need to define a clinical task

Despite the current rapid advance in technologies for whole slide imaging, there is still no scientific consensus on the recommended methodology for image quality assessment of digital pathology slides. For medical images in general, it has been recommended to assess image quality in terms of doctors' success rates in performing a specific clinical task while using the images (clinical image quality, cIQ). However, digital pathology is a new modality, and already identifying the appropriate task is difficult. In an alternative common approach, humans are asked to do a simpler task such as rating overall image quality (perceived image quality, pIQ), but that involves the risk of nonclinically relevant findings due to an unknown relationship between the pIQ and cIQ. In this study, we explored three different experimental protocols: (1) conducting a clinical task (detecting inclusion bodies), (2) rating image similarity and preference, and (3) rating the overall image quality. Additionally, within protocol 1, overall quality ratings were also collected (task-aware pIQ). The experiments were done by diagnostic veterinary pathologists in the context of evaluating the quality of hematoxylin and eosin-stained digital pathology slides of animal tissue samples under several common image alterations: additive noise, blurring, change in gamma, change in color saturation, and JPG compression. While the size of our experiments was small and prevents drawing strong conclusions, the results suggest the need to define a clinical task. Importantly, the pIQ data collected under protocols 2 and 3 did not always rank the image alterations the same as their cIQ from protocol 1, warning against using conventional pIQ to predict cIQ. At the same time, there was a correlation between the cIQ and task-aware pIQ ratings from protocol 1, suggesting that the clinical experiment context (set by specifying the clinical task) may affect human visual attention and bring focus to their criteria of image quality. Further research is needed to assess whether and for which purposes (e.g., preclinical testing) task-aware pIQ ratings could substitute cIQ for a given clinical task.