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

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.

[1]  R Todd Constable,et al.  Image distortion correction in EPI: Comparison of field mapping with point spread function mapping , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  Isabelle Bloch,et al.  Distortion correction and robust tensor estimation for MR diffusion imaging , 2002, Medical Image Anal..

[3]  Mark Jenkinson,et al.  The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project , 2013, NeuroImage.

[4]  Gareth J. Barker,et al.  Optimal imaging parameters for fiber-orientation estimation in diffusion MRI , 2005, NeuroImage.

[5]  Stefan Skare,et al.  How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: application to diffusion tensor imaging , 2003, NeuroImage.

[6]  N. Makris,et al.  High angular resolution diffusion imaging reveals intravoxel white matter fiber heterogeneity , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[7]  Dongrong Xu,et al.  Correction of eddy‐current distortions in diffusion tensor images using the known directions and strengths of diffusion gradients , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  D. Parker,et al.  Reduction of geometric and intensity distortions in echo‐planar imaging using a multireference scan , 1997, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  P. Basser,et al.  Comprehensive approach for correction of motion and distortion in diffusion‐weighted MRI , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[10]  Steen Moeller,et al.  Advances in diffusion MRI acquisition and processing in the Human Connectome Project , 2013, NeuroImage.

[11]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Efficient correction of inhomogeneous static magnetic field-induced distortion in Echo Planar Imaging , 2010, NeuroImage.

[12]  Mark Jenkinson,et al.  Reducing distortions in diffusion‐weighted echo planar imaging with a dual‐echo blip‐reversed sequence , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  S. Ekholm,et al.  Evaluation of measurement uncertainties in human diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)‐derived parameters and optimization of clinical DTI protocols with a wild bootstrap analysis , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[14]  Stefan Skare,et al.  A Model-Based Method for Retrospective Correction of Geometric Distortions in Diffusion-Weighted EPI , 2002, NeuroImage.

[15]  Geoff J M Parker,et al.  Distortion correction for diffusion‐weighted MRI tractography and fMRI in the temporal lobes , 2010, Human brain mapping.

[16]  Michael Deppe,et al.  Correcting eddy current and motion effects by affine whole‐brain registrations: Evaluation of three‐dimensional distortions and comparison with slicewise correction , 2010, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[17]  V. Wedeen,et al.  Reduction of eddy‐current‐induced distortion in diffusion MRI using a twice‐refocused spin echo , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL , 2004, NeuroImage.

[19]  Denis Le Bihan,et al.  Looking into the functional architecture of the brain with diffusion MRI , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  Derek K. Jones,et al.  The effect of gradient sampling schemes on measures derived from diffusion tensor MRI: A Monte Carlo study † , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[21]  U. Techavipoo,et al.  Estimation of mutual information objective function based on Fourier shift theorem: an application to eddy current distortion correction in diffusion tensor imaging. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[22]  Thorsten Feiweier,et al.  3-D Residual Eddy Current Field Characterisation: Applied to Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Tract-based spatial statistics: Voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data , 2006, NeuroImage.