Moner: Motion Correction in Undersampled Radial MRI with Unsupervised Neural Representation
Qing Wu, Chenhe Du, Xuanyu Tian, Jingyi Yu, Yuyao Zhang, Hongjiang Wei

TL;DR
Moner introduces an unsupervised neural representation approach for motion correction in radial MRI that does not require training data, effectively reconstructing artifact-free images and estimating motion from undersampled, corrupted data.
Contribution
It proposes a novel unsupervised method leveraging implicit neural representations and a coarse-to-fine hash encoding for improved motion correction in radial MRI without training data.
Findings
Achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art methods on in-domain data.
Shows significant improvements on out-of-domain data.
Does not require large-scale training datasets.
Abstract
Motion correction (MoCo) in radial MRI is a particularly challenging problem due to the unpredictability of subject movement. Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) MoCo algorithms often rely on extensive high-quality MR images to pre-train neural networks, which constrains the solution space and leads to outstanding image reconstruction results. However, the need for large-scale datasets significantly increases costs and limits model generalization. In this work, we propose Moner, an unsupervised MoCo method that jointly reconstructs artifact-free MR images and estimates accurate motion from undersampled, rigid motion-corrupted k-space data, without requiring any training data. Our core idea is to leverage the continuous prior of implicit neural representation (INR) to constrain this ill-posed inverse problem, facilitating optimal solutions. Specifically, we integrate a quasi-static motion…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Spotlight
The following strengths can be observed within the paper: - The inclusion of a motion model for MR reconstruction is sound and by leveraging the Fourier slice theorem, the inclusion directly in image-space allows simple motion modeling. - The work includes extensive evaluation, including several comparison methods as well as reasonable ablation studies. - The paper is nicely structured.
The present work poses some major and minor weaknesses: Major: - The evaluation is exclusively conducted on simulated motion-corrupted data, which raises the question of its actual applciability in real settings. Particularly considering that motion artefacts not only arise from the physical movement, but also from resulting field inhomogenieties, etc., the simulation procedure might be too simplified and the model is likely to simply adapt to these parameters. If the work is aimed at MR motion-
* Unsupervised Approach: Unlike many MoCo methods that require large pre-trained datasets, Moner’s unsupervised framework enhances generalizability and applicability across different MRI modalities. * Motion Estimation and Stability: The quasi-static motion model and back-projection formulation stabilize model optimization, effectively reducing artifacts even in challenging motion-corrupted scenarios. * Efficiency and Robustness: Compared to existing methods like Score-MoCo, Moner achieves super
* Extension to 3D and Non-Radial Sampling Patterns: The current model primarily addresses 2D radial MRI, and while extensibility to 3D MRI is suggested, it remains untested. The same applies to Cartesian or spiral sampling patterns, which are common in clinical MRI. * Reliance on Motion Assumptions: The quasi-static motion model assumes rigid motion between acquisition frames. Further clarification on its limitations in more complex motion settings could strengthen the study.
- The paper is overall well-written, presenting an interesting method valuable to the field. - A good background introduction that let readers know what radial MRI reconstruction is. - Methods were well represented, with motivation explained for each design choice. - Extensive experiments and ablation studies prove the efficacy of the proposed method and individual design choices.
- Experiments were only conducted on brain MRI datasets with similar contrast/MR sequence. Readers would be interested in how good the proposed method is on MRI images of different contrasts or taken at different body parts. Specifically, will the optimization still converge stably with the same optimization strategy (e.g. hash encoding) and hyperparameter choice? In addition, how does noise level affect the optimization process? - How will trans-plane motion affect the stability of optimization
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications · Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications · Medical Imaging and Analysis
MethodsInfoNCE · Batch Normalization · Momentum Contrast
