Please, rank the following on the scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best)
Originality 4
Methodological originality 4
Biologic originality 3
Completeness of discussion 3
Appropriate references 4
Organisation 4
Clarity 4
Is the technical treatment plausible and free from technical errors?
Have you checked the equations       No
Are you aware of prior publication or presentation of this work No
Is the paper too long No
Recommendation:
     (A) Accept
     (B) Accept subject to minor revisions
     (C) Accept with major revisions
     (D) Reject
     My recommendation: Accept
Should this paper be presented as poster or as podium presentation (this recommendation does not reflect
upon the relative quality of the paper)?
oral
Comments to the manuscript:
This paper present a multi-scale feature tracking algorithm. It is quite interesting, but it is still in
preliminary stage. Authors may apply their work into more clinical data to demonstrate the ability of their
approach.

This paper presents a method for myocardial motion estimation from HARP-like MRI tagged images, based on multiscale optical flow methods. The paper is well written and clearly presented. The method of topological number for feature classification is interesting.

 

Specific Points:

1. The experiments only report validation against rigid body translations. Validation on a deformation field would be more convincing. It would also be necessary to validate against an accepted tag tracking method.
2. typo “asses” on page 7
3. Include discussion on how these methods can be used in biomechanical modelling, eg to validate models. This would make it more applicable to the goals of the CBM workshop.

    

References

1. Dougherty et al.  IEEE TMI 1999;18,359–363. was one of the first applications of optical flow methods to tagged MRI and should be referenced.