Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 1, 2026
Technical Approach for Infrared Tracking for Soft Tissue Navigation with a Holographic Head-Mounted Display and Preclinical Validation
Published on: September 2, 2025
Evaluating the Performance of Augmented Reality in Displaying Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Three-Dimensional
Frank Chang1, Ben Laguna2, Jesus Uribe3
1UCSF Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Masters of Science in Biomedical Imaging Program, San Francisco, California, USA.
Introduction/Background:
Establishing accuracy and precision of magnetic resonance (MR)-derived augmented reality (AR) models is critical before clinical utilization, particularly in preoperative planning. We investigate the performance of an AR application in representing and displaying MR-derived three-dimensional holographic models.
Methods:
Thirty gold standard (GS) measurements were obtained on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) phantom (six interfiducial distances and five configurations). Four MRI pulse sequences were obtained for each of the five configurations, and distances measured in Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). Digital imaging and communications in medicine files were translated into three-dimensional models and then loaded onto a novel AR platform. Measurements were also obtained with the software's AR caliper tool. Significant differences among the three groups (GS, PACS, and AR) were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and nonsample median test. Accuracy analysis of GS vs. AR was performed. Precision (percent deviation) of the AR-based caliper tool was also assessed.
Results:
No statistically significant difference existed between AR and GS measurements (P = .6208). PACS demonstrated mean squared error (MSE) of 0.29%. AR digital caliper demonstrated an MSE of 0.3%. Three-dimensional T2 CUBE AR measurements using the platform's AR caliper tool demonstrated an MSE of 8.6%. Percent deviation of AR software caliper tool ranged between 1.9% and 3.9%.
Discussion:
AR demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in comparison to GS, comparable to PACS-based measurements. AR caliper tool demonstrated overall lower accuracy than with physical calipers, although with MSE <10% and greatest measured difference from GS measuring <5 mm. AR-based caliper demonstrated a high degree of precision.
Conclusion:
There was no statistically significant difference between GS measurements and three-dimensional AR measurements in MRI phantom models.
