M R Bax | Search PubMed

PubMed2006

Evaluation of a new electromagnetic tracking system using a standardized assessment protocol.

This note uses a published protocol to evaluate a newly released 6 degrees of freedom electromagnetic tracking system (Aurora, Northern Digital Inc.). A practice for performance monitoring over time is also proposed. The protocol uses a machined base plate to measure relative error in position and orientation as well as the influence of metallic objects in the operating volume. Positional jitter (E(RMS)) was found to be 0.17 mm +/- 0.19 mm. A relative positional error of 0.25 mm +/- 0.22 mm at 50 mm offsets and 0.97 mm +/- 1.01 mm at 300 mm offsets was found. The mean of the relative rotation error was found to be 0.20 degrees +/- 0.14 degrees with respect to the axial and 0.91 degrees +/- 0.68 degrees for the longitudinal rotation. The most significant distortion caused by metallic objects is caused by 400-series stainless steel. A 9.4 mm maximum error occurred when the rod was closest to the emitter, 10 mm away. The improvement compared to older generations of the Aurora with respect to accuracy is substantial.

Austria↗

PubMed2000

Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems.

OBJECTIVE: Effective utilization of an optical tracking system for image-based surgical guidance requires optimal placement of the dynamic reference frame (DRF) with respect to the tracking camera. Unlike other studies that measure the overall accuracy of a particular navigation system, this study investigates the precision of one component of the navigation system: the optical tracking system (OTS). The precision of OTS measurements is quantified as jitter. By measuring jitter, one can better understand how system inaccuracies depend on the position of the DRF with respect to the camera. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both FlashPointtrade mark (Image Guided Technologies, Inc., Boulder, Colorado) and Polaristrade mark (Northern Digital Inc., Ontario, Canada) optical tracking systems were tested in five different camera and DRF configurations. A linear testing apparatus with a software interface was designed to facilitate data collection. Jitter measurements were collected over a single quadrant within the camera viewing volume, as symmetry was assumed about the horizontal and vertical axes. RESULTS: Excluding the highest 5% of jitter, the FlashPoint cameras had an RMS jitter range of 0.028 +/- 0.012 mm for the 300 mm model, 0.051 +/- 0.038 mm for the 580 mm model, and 0.059 +/- 0.047 mm for the 1 m model. The Polaris camera had an RMS jitter range of 0.058 +/- 0.037 mm with an active DRF and 0.115 +/- 0.075 mm with a passive DRF. CONCLUSION: Both FlashPoint and Polaris have jitter less than 0.11 mm, although the error distributions differ significantly. Total jitter for all systems is dominated by the component measured in the axis directed away from the camera.

Surgical Procedures, Operative↗