IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0112411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of Distortion Correction on Diffusion Imaging: Comparison of FSL Eddy and Eddy_Correct Using 30 and 60 Directions Diffusion Encoding

Author

Listed:
  • Haruyasu Yamada
  • Osamu Abe
  • Takashi Shizukuishi
  • Junko Kikuta
  • Takahiro Shinozaki
  • Ko Dezawa
  • Akira Nagano
  • Masayuki Matsuda
  • Hiroki Haradome
  • Yoshiki Imamura

Abstract

Diffusion imaging is a unique noninvasive tool to detect brain white matter trajectory and integrity in vivo. However, this technique suffers from spatial distortion and signal pileup or dropout originating from local susceptibility gradients and eddy currents. Although there are several methods to mitigate these problems, most techniques can be applicable either to susceptibility or eddy-current induced distortion alone with a few exceptions. The present study compared the correction efficiency of FSL tools, “eddy_correct” and the combination of “eddy” and “topup” in terms of diffusion-derived fractional anisotropy (FA). The brain diffusion images were acquired from 10 healthy subjects using 30 and 60 directions encoding schemes based on the electrostatic repulsive forces. For the 30 directions encoding, 2 sets of diffusion images were acquired with the same parameters, except for the phase-encode blips which had opposing polarities along the anteroposterior direction. For the 60 directions encoding, non–diffusion-weighted and diffusion-weighted images were obtained with forward phase-encoding blips and non–diffusion-weighted images with the same parameter, except for the phase-encode blips, which had opposing polarities. FA images without and with distortion correction were compared in a voxel-wise manner with tract-based spatial statistics. We showed that images corrected with eddy and topup possessed higher FA values than images uncorrected and corrected with eddy_correct with trilinear (FSL default setting) or spline interpolation in most white matter skeletons, using both encoding schemes. Furthermore, the 60 directions encoding scheme was superior as measured by increased FA values to the 30 directions encoding scheme, despite comparable acquisition time. This study supports the combination of eddy and topup as a superior correction tool in diffusion imaging rather than the eddy_correct tool, especially with trilinear interpolation, using 60 directions encoding scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Haruyasu Yamada & Osamu Abe & Takashi Shizukuishi & Junko Kikuta & Takahiro Shinozaki & Ko Dezawa & Akira Nagano & Masayuki Matsuda & Hiroki Haradome & Yoshiki Imamura, 2014. "Efficacy of Distortion Correction on Diffusion Imaging: Comparison of FSL Eddy and Eddy_Correct Using 30 and 60 Directions Diffusion Encoding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112411
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112411
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112411&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0112411?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112411. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.