Electromagnetic Tracker Measurement Error Simulation and Tool Design

  • Gregory S. Fischer
  • Russell H. Taylor
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3750)

Abstract

Developing electromagnetically (EM) tracked tools can be very time consuming. Tool design traditionally takes many iterations, each of which requires construction of a physical tool and performing lengthy experiments. We propose a simulator that allows tools to be virtually designed and tested before ever being physically built. Both tool rigid body (RB) configurations and reference RB configurations are configured; the reference RB can be located anywhere in the field, and the tool is virtually moved around the reference in user-specified pattern. Sensor measurements of both RBs are artificially distorted according to a previously acquired error field mapping, and the 6-DOF frames of the Tool and Reference are refit to the distorted sensors. It is possible to predict the tool tip registration error for a particular tool and coordinate reference frame (CRF) in a particular scenario before ever even building the tools.

References

  1. 1.
    Fitzpatrick, J.M., West, J.B.: The Distribution of Target Registration Error in Rigid-Body Point-Based Registration. IEEE Trans. on Med. Imaging 20(9), 917–927 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    West, J.B., Maurer Jr., C.R.: Designing Optically Tracked Instruments for Image-Guided Surgery. IEEE Trans. on Med. Imaging 23(5), 533–545 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hummel, J., Figl, M., Kollmann, C., Bergmann, H., Birkfellner, W.: Evaluation of a Miniature Electromagnetic Position Tracker. Med. Physics 29(10), 2205–2212 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner, A., Schicho, K., Birkfellner, W., et al.: Quantitative Analysis of Factors Affecting Intraoperative Precision and Stability of Optoelectronic and Electromagnetic Tracking Systems. Medical Physics 29(5), 905–912 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, A.J., Edwards, P.J., Deligianni, F., Yang, G.: Freehand Cocalibration of Optical and Electromagnetic Trackers for Navigated Bronchoscopy. In: Yang, G.-Z., Jiang, T.-Z. (eds.) MIAR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3150, pp. 320–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanada, K., et al.: A Rapid Method for Magnetic Tracker Calibration Using a Magneto-Optical Hybrid Tracker. In: Ellis, R.E., Peters, T.M. (eds.) MICCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2879, pp. 285–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu, X., Taylor, R.: A Direction Space Interpolation Technique for Calibration of Electromagnetic Surgical Navigation Systems. In: Ellis, R.E., Peters, T.M. (eds.) MICCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2879, pp. 215–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arun, K.S., Huang, T.S., Blostein, S.D.: Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets. IEEE PAMI 9(5), 698–700 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, G.S.: Electromagnetic Tracker Characterization and Optimal Tool Design - With Applications to ENT Surgery. Masters thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA (May 2005), http://www.cisst.org/~gfischer

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory S. Fischer
    • 1
  • Russell H. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.CISST ERCJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations