Information-based Unified Design Framework for NMR Magnetic Tracking System
Authors: Seçkin Eren Yetim, Mehmet Efe Tiryaki
Organizations: METU-ROMER, Center for Robotics and AI, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye. · Department of Mechanical Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) magnetic tracking offers a promising alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based localization for medical robotic guidance. However, scalar field measurements and field-aligned marker moments constrain position and orientation tracking, requiring careful configuration design. We present a unified information-based framework that uses local covariance analysis to evaluate receiver geometry, marker separation, and external source configuration in on/off-board NMR tracking. Numerical evaluation shows that planar-array precision depends jointly on receiver count and geometry, with triangular lattice arrays achieving the lowest best-case position uncertainty among the evaluated layouts for 9--20 receivers. Two spatially separated, field-aligned markers enable device-axis tracking, with predicted angular uncertainty below 2∘ at the evaluated workspace center for suitable marker separations. We further establish point-dipole source--receiver duality, unifying the analysis of on/off-board NMR tracking. These
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Magnetic-tracking architectures considered in this study.MRI setting and representative distance-dependent measurements δBi(ri) from seven receivers. (A) Off-board sensing of a device-mounted, field-aligned marker m by an external receiver array. (B) On-board sensing of fields δBk from independently activated external sources with moments mk .
Fig. 2: (A) Single marker–receiver geometry with depth z , lateral separation ρ , and local field δB .(B) Two identical field-aligned markers separated by L define the unoriented device axis u .
Fig. 3: Local 3-D position-uncertainty score for the three-receiver planar array. (A) Measurement geometry. (B) Top view of the equilateral reference array. (C) Ap map in the x=0 plane. (D–F) Ap maps at z=5 , 20, and 60 mm. All maps use a logarithmic scale with Ap reported in millimeters.
Fig. 4: Planar receiver-array comparison with 20-mm minimum pairwise spacing. (A) Representative layouts from the four evaluated families. (B) Minimum sampled Ap versus receiver count N at z=60 mm over the 100×100 mm 2 region; the inset enlarges N=18 –20.
Fig. 5: Worst-over-direction two-marker uncertainty. (A) Au workspace map at z=60 mm for L=20 mm; contours at 1∘ and 2∘ . (B) Corresponding Ap map; contours at 0.1 and 1 mm. (C) Center-point Au versus L . (D) Center-point Ap versus L . Open circles mark Lref=20 mm; (A–C) use logarithmic scales.
Fig. 6: Sequential scalar on-board sensing with three independently activated sources. (A) Distributed–parallel configuration. (B) Co-located–orthogonal configuration. (C) Distributed–parallel Ap map in the y=0 plane. (D) Co-located–orthogonal Ap map. Contours mark 0.01 , 0.1 , and 1 mm; both maps share a 0–2 mm scale, with larger values saturated.