Skip to main content

Guided ultrasound calibration: where, how, and how many calibration fiducials

Abstract

Purpose

Many image-guided interventions rely on tracked ultrasound where the transducer is augmented with a tracking device. The relationship between the ultrasound image coordinate system and the tracking sensor must be determined accurately via probe calibration. We introduce a novel calibration framework guided by the prediction of target registration error (TRE): Between successive measurements of the calibration phantom, our framework guides the user in choosing the pose of the calibration phantom by optimizing TRE.

Methods

We introduced an oriented line calibration phantom and modeled the ultrasound calibration process as a point-to-line registration problem. We then derived a spatial stiffness model of point-to-line registration for estimating TRE magnitude at any target. Assuming isotropic, identical localization error, we used the model to estimate TRE for each pixel using the current calibration estimate. We then searched through the calibration tool space to find the pose for the next fiducial which maximally minimized TRE.

Results

Both simulation and experimental results suggested that TRE decreases monotonically, reaching an asymptote when a sufficient number of measurements (typically around 12) are made. Independent point reconstruction accuracy assessment showed sub-millimeter accuracy of the calibration framework.

Conclusion

We have introduced the first TRE-guided ultrasound calibration framework. Using a hollow straw as an oriented line phantom, we virtually constructed a rigid lines phantom and modeled the calibration process as a point-to-line registration. Highly accurate calibration was achieved with minimal measurements by using a spatial stiffness model of TRE to strategically choose the pose of the calibration phantom between successive measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Ackerman M, Cheng A, Boctor E, Chirikjian G (2014) Online ultrasound sensor calibration using gradient descent on the Euclidean group. In: Robotics and automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE international conference on, pp 4900–4905

  2. Ameri G, McLeod AJ, Baxter JSH, Chen ECS, Peters TM (2015) Line fiducial material and thickness considerations for ultrasound calibration. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 9415

  3. Besl P, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. Pattern analysis and machine intelligence. IEEE Trans 14(2):239–256

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen EC, McLeod AJ, Baxter JS, Peters TM (2015) An iterative closest point framework for ultrasound calibration. In: Augmented environments for computer-assisted interventions, vol 9365, Springer International Publishing, pp 69–79

  5. Chen EC, McLeod AJ, Baxter JS, Peters TM (2015) Registration of 3D shapes under anisotropic scaling. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(6):867–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen TK, Thurston AD, Ellis RE, Abolmaesumi P (2009) A real-time freehand ultrasound calibration system with automatic accuracy feedback and control. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(1):79–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Comeau RM, Fenster A, Peters TM (1998) Integrated MR and ultrasound imaging for improved image guidance in neurosurgery. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 3338, pp 747–754

  8. Detmer PR, Bashein G, Hodges T, Beach KW, Filer EP, Burns DH, Strandness DE Jr (1994) 3D ultrasonic image feature localization based on magnetic scanhead tracking: in vitro calibration and validation. Ultrasound Med Biol 20:923–936

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fitzpatrick J, West J, Jr Maurer CR (1998) Predicting error in rigid-body point-based registration. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 17(5):694–702

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gower JC, Dijksterhuis GB (2004) Procrustes problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Guo X, Cheng A, Zhang H, Kang HJ, Etienne-Cummings R, Boctor E (2014) Active echo: A new paradigm for ultrasound calibration. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, pp 397–404

  12. Horn BK (1987) Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. J Opt Soc Am 4:629–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsu PW, Prager RW, Gee AH, Treece GM (2009) Freehand 3D ultrasound calibration: a review. In: Advanced imaging in biology and medicine, Springer, Berlin, pp 47–84

  14. Hsu PW, Treece GM, Prager RW, Houghton NE, Gee AH (2008) Comparison of freehand 3-D ultrasound calibration techniques using a stylus. Ultrasound Med Biol 34(10):1610–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Khamene A, Sauer F (2005) A novel phantom-less spatial and temporal ultrasound calibration method. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, pp 65–72

  16. Ma B, Ellis RE (2003) Robust registration for computer-integrated orthopedic surgery: laboratory validation and clinical experience. Med Image Anal 7(3):237–250

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ma B, Ellis RE (2004) Spatial-stiffness analysis of surface-based registration. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, pp 623–630

  18. Ma B, Moghari M, Ellis R, Abolmaesumi P (2010) Estimation of optimal fiducial target registration error in the presence of heteroscedastic noise. Med Imaging IEEE Trans 29(3):708–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ma B, Peters TM, Chen ECS (2016) Estimation of line-based target registration error. Proc SPIE 9786:978626-1–978626-9

  20. Mercier L, Langø T, Lindseth F, Collins LD (2005) A review of calibration techniques for freehand 3-D ultrasound systems. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(2):143–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Muratore DM, Galloway RL Jr (2001) Beam calibration without a phantom for creating a 3-D freehand ultrasound system. Ultrasound Med Biol 27(11):1557–1566

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Prager RW, Rohling RN, Gee AH, Berman L (1998) Rapid calibration for 3-D freehand ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(6):855–869

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schönemann PH (1966) A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika 31(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Welch J, Bax M, Mori K, Krummel T, Shahidi R, Maurer C (2002) A fast and accurate method of ultrasound probe calibration for image-guided surgery. In: Proceedings of computer assisted radiology and surgery, p 1078

  25. Yaniv Z (2015) Which pivot calibration? In: Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 9415

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC Discovery Grant).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elvis C. S. Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Elvis C. S. Chen, Terry M. Peters, and Burton Ma declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, E.C.S., Peters, T.M. & Ma, B. Guided ultrasound calibration: where, how, and how many calibration fiducials. Int J CARS 11, 889–898 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1390-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1390-7

Keywords

  • Ultrasound
  • Calibration
  • Spatial stiffness model
  • Target registration error
  • Fiducial localization error
  • Guidance
  • Virtual rigid lines phantom