Target Tracking Errors for 5D and 6D Spatial Measurement Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, magnetic tracking systems, whose fundamental unit of measurement is a 5D transformation (three translational and two rotational degrees-of-freedom), have become much more popular. Two 5D sensors can be combined to obtain a 6D transformation similar to the ones provided by the point-based registration in optical tracking. However, estimates of the tool tip uncertainty, which we have called the target tracking error (TTE) since no registration is explicitly performed, are not available in the same manner as their optical counterpart. If the systematic bias error can be corrected and estimates of the 5D or 6D fiducial localizer error (FLE) are provided in the form of zero mean normally distributed random variables in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively, then the TTE can be modeled. In this paper, the required expressions that model the TTE as a function of the systematic bias, FLE and target location are derived and then validated using Monte Carlo simulations. We also show that the first order approximation is sufficient beyond the range of errors typically observed during an image-guided surgery (IGS) procedure. Applications of the models are described for a minimally invasive intracardiac surgical guidance system and needle-based therapy systems. Together with the target registration error (TRE) statistical models for point-based registration, the models presented in this article provide the basic framework for estimating the total system measurement uncertainty for an IGS system. Future work includes developing TRE models for commonly used registration methods that do not already have them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".