Touchless scanner control to support MRI-guided interventions
MRI-guided interventions allow minimally invasive, radiation-free treatment but rely on real-time image data and free slice positioning. Interventional interaction with the data and the MRI scanner is cumbersome due to the diagnostic focus of current systems, confined space and sterile conditions.
We present a touchless, hand-gesture-based interaction concept to control functions of the MRI scanner typically used during MRI-guided interventions. The system consists of a hand gesture sensor customised for MRI compatibility and a specialised UI that was developed based on clinical needs. A user study with 10 radiologists was performed to compare the gesture interaction concept and its components to task delegation—the prevalent method in clinical practice.
Both methods performed comparably in terms of task duration and subjective workload. Subjective performance with gesture input was perceived as worse compared to task delegation, but was rated acceptable in terms of usability while task delegation was not.
This work contributes by (1) providing access to relevant functions on an MRI scanner during percutaneous interventions in a (2) suitable way for sterile human–computer interaction. The introduced concept removes indirect interaction with the scanner via an assistant, which leads to comparable subjective workload and task completion times while showing higher perceived usability.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Interventional Human–computer interaction Gestures Task delegation Radiology Usability Touchless interaction
The work of this paper is partly funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Forschungscampus STIMULATE under Grant Number 13GW0095A and 13GW0095C. Frank Wacker declares grants from Siemens Healthcare outside of this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Supplementary material 2 (mp4 11200 KB)
- 2.Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J (2009) Determining what individual sus scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 4(3):114–123Google Scholar
- 3.Barkhausen J, Kahn T, Krombach GA, Kuhl CK, Lotz J, Maintz D, Ricke J, Schönberg SO, Vogl TJ, Wacker FK (2017) White paper: interventional MRI: current status and potential for development considering economic perspectives, part 2: liver and other applications in oncology. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 189(11):1047–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
- 10.Hart SG (2006) Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 50, pp 904–908Google Scholar
- 15.Malaterre M et al (2008) GDCM reference manual, 1st edn. http://gdcm.sourceforge.net/gdcm.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018
- 16.Mazilu MT, Faranesh AZ, Derbyshire JA, Lederman RJ, Hansen MS (2011) Low-cost MRI compatible interface device for interactive scan plane control. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of ISMRM, Montreal, Canada, p 3752Google Scholar
- 19.Pannicke E, Hatscher B, Hensen B, Mewes A, Hansen C, Wacker F, Vick R (2018) MR compatible and sterile gesture interaction for interventions. In: Proceedings of the 12th interventional MRI symposiumGoogle Scholar
- 20.Riffe MJ, Yutzy SR, Jiang Y, Twieg MD, Blumenthal CJ, Hsu DP, Pan L, Gilson WD, Sunshine JL, Flask CA, Duerk JL, Nakamoto D, Gulani V, Griswold MA (2014) Device localization and dynamic scan plane selection using a wireless magnetic resonance imaging detector array. Magn Reson Med 71(6):2243–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Schroeder WJ, Martin K, Lorensen WE (2006) The visualization toolkit, 4. ed edn. Kitware, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 28.Weiss J, Hoffmann R, Rempp H, Ke\(\beta \)ler DE, Pereira PL, Nikolaou K, Clasen S (2018) Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of percutaneous mr-guided ablation of small (\(\pm \) 12 mm) hepatic malignancies. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:374–381Google Scholar