Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2026
Video-oculography in Mice
Published on: July 19, 2012
Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems
R Khadem1, C C Yeh, M Sadeghi-Tehrani
1Image Guidance Laboratories, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA 94305-5327, USA.
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.
