Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMagana-Salgado, Uriel
dc.contributor.authorNamburi, Praneeth
dc.contributor.authorFeigin-Almon, Micha
dc.contributor.authorPallares-Lopez, Roger
dc.contributor.authorAnthony, Brian
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-30T16:32:35Z
dc.date.available2023-05-30T16:32:35Z
dc.date.issued2023-05-24
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/150827
dc.description.abstractAbstract Tracking points in ultrasound (US) videos can be especially useful to characterize tissues in motion. Tracking algorithms that analyze successive video frames, such as variations of Optical Flow and Lucas–Kanade (LK), exploit frame-to-frame temporal information to track regions of interest. In contrast, convolutional neural-network (CNN) models process each video frame independently of neighboring frames. In this paper, we show that frame-to-frame trackers accumulate error over time. We propose three interpolation-like methods to combat error accumulation and show that all three methods reduce tracking errors in frame-to-frame trackers. On the neural-network end, we show that a CNN-based tracker, DeepLabCut (DLC), outperforms all four frame-to-frame trackers when tracking tissues in motion. DLC is more accurate than the frame-to-frame trackers and less sensitive to variations in types of tissue movement. The only caveat found with DLC comes from its non-temporal tracking strategy, leading to jitter between consecutive frames. Overall, when tracking points in videos of moving tissue, we recommend using DLC when prioritizing accuracy and robustness across movements in videos, and using LK with the proposed error-correction methods for small movements when tracking jitter is unacceptable.en_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-023-01105-yen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attributionen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceBioMed Centralen_US
dc.titleA comparison of point-tracking algorithms in ultrasound videos from the upper limben_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationBioMedical Engineering OnLine. 2023 May 24;22(1):52en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Medical Engineering & Science
dc.identifier.mitlicensePUBLISHER_CC
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2023-05-28T03:14:22Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dspace.date.submission2023-05-28T03:14:22Z
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work and Publication Information Neededen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record