Suscripción a Biblioteca: Guest
Portal Digitalde Biblioteca Digital eLibros Revistas Referencias y Libros de Ponencias Colecciones
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.207 SNIP: 0.376 CiteScore™: 0.79

ISSN Imprimir: 0278-940X
ISSN En Línea: 1943-619X

Volumen 47, 2019 Volumen 46, 2018 Volumen 45, 2017 Volumen 44, 2016 Volumen 43, 2015 Volumen 42, 2014 Volumen 41, 2013 Volumen 40, 2012 Volumen 39, 2011 Volumen 38, 2010 Volumen 37, 2009 Volumen 36, 2008 Volumen 35, 2007 Volumen 34, 2006 Volumen 33, 2005 Volumen 32, 2004 Volumen 31, 2003 Volumen 30, 2002 Volumen 29, 2001 Volumen 28, 2000 Volumen 27, 1999 Volumen 26, 1998 Volumen 25, 1997 Volumen 24, 1996 Volumen 23, 1995

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v38.i2.20
pages 127-141

Quality Assessment in Magnetic Resonance Images

Neelam Sinha
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
A.G. Ramakrishnan
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India


Assessing quality of medical images is critical because the subsequent course of actions depend on it. Extensive use of clinical magnetic resonance (MR) imaging warrants a study in image indices used for MR images. The quality of MR images assumes particular significance in the determination of their reliability for diagnostics, response to therapies, synchronization across different imaging cycles, optimization of interventional imaging, and image restoration. In this paper, we review various techniques developed for the assessment of MR image quality. The reported quality indices can be broadly classified as subjective/objective, automatic/semi-automatic, region-of-interest/non-region-of-interest−based, full-reference/no-reference and HVS incorporated/non-HVS incorporated. The trade-of across the various indices lies in the computational complexity, assumptions, repeatability, and resemblance to human perception. Because images are eventually viewed by the human eye, it is found that it is important to incorporate aspects of human visual response, sensitivity, and characteristics in computing quality indices. Additionally, no-reference metrics are the most relevant due to the lack of availability of a golden standard against which images could be compared. Techniques that are objective and automatic are preferred for their repeatability and to eliminate avoidable errors due to factors like stress, which arise in human intervention.