Quantitative comparison of algorithms for inter-subject registration of 3D volumetric brain MRI scans

The objective of inter-subject registration of three-dimensional volumetric brain scans is to reduce the anatomical variability between the images scanned from different individuals. This is a necessary step in many different applications such as voxelwise group analysis of imaging data obtained from different individuals. In this paper, the ability of three different image registration algorithms in reducing inter-subject anatomical variability is quantitatively compared using a set of common high-resolution volumetric magnetic resonance imaging scans from 17 subjects. The algorithms are from the automatic image registration (AIR; version 5), the statistical parametric mapping (SPM99), and the automatic registration toolbox (ART) packages. The latter includes the implementation of a non-linear image registration algorithm, details of which are presented in this paper. The accuracy of registration is quantified in terms of two independent measures: (1) post-registration spatial dispersion of sets of homologous landmarks manually identified on images before or after registration; and (2) voxelwise image standard deviation maps computed within the set of images registered by each algorithm. Both measures showed that the ART algorithm is clearly superior to both AIR and SPM99 in reducing inter-subject anatomical variability. The spatial dispersion measure was found to be more sensitive when the landmarks were placed after image registration. The standard deviation measure was found sensitive to intensity normalization or the method of image interpolation.

[1]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Automatic 3‐D model‐based neuroanatomical segmentation , 1995 .

[2]  Y. Kosugi,et al.  Neural Network Mapping for Nonlinear Stereotactic Normalization of Brain MR Images , 1993, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[3]  Guinevere F. Eden,et al.  Intersubject analysis of fMRI data using spatial normalization , 1996, NeuroImage.

[4]  B. Ardekani,et al.  A Fully Automatic Multimodality Image Registration Algorithm , 1995, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[5]  Stephen M Smith,et al.  Fast robust automated brain extraction , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[6]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  Automated image registration , 1993 .

[7]  Stephan Heckers,et al.  A Method for Assessing the Accuracy of Intersubject Registration of the Human Brain Using Anatomic Landmarks , 1999, NeuroImage.

[8]  Derek K. Jones,et al.  Spatial Normalization and Averaging of Diffusion Tensor MRI Data Sets , 2002, NeuroImage.

[9]  J. Thirion,et al.  Automatic detection of hippocampal atrophy on magnetic resonance images. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[10]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  Enhancing the Multivariate Signal of [15O] water PET Studies with a New Non-Linear Neuroanatomical Registration Algorithm , 1999, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[11]  J. Ashburner,et al.  Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[12]  Tunc Geveci,et al.  Advanced Calculus , 2014, Nature.

[13]  Michael I. Miller,et al.  Volumetric transformation of brain anatomy , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  K J Friston,et al.  Detecting bilateral abnormalities with voxel‐based morphometry , 2000, Human brain mapping.

[15]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Voxel-Based Morphometry—The Methods , 2000, NeuroImage.

[16]  Ruzena Bajcsy,et al.  Multiresolution elastic matching , 1989, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[17]  Markus Svensén,et al.  ICA of fMRI Group Study Data , 2002, NeuroImage.

[18]  Derek L. G. Hill,et al.  Quantification of small cerebral ventricular volume changes in treated growth hormone patients using nonrigid registration , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[19]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  “Voxel-Based Morphometry” Should Not Be Used with Imperfectly Registered Images , 2001, NeuroImage.

[20]  Baba C. Vemuri,et al.  An Accurate and Efficient Bayesian Method for Automatic Segmentation of Brain MRI , 2002, ECCV.

[21]  Stephen C. Strother,et al.  Impact of inter-subject image registration on group analysis of fMRI data , 2004 .

[22]  D. Javitt,et al.  BRAIN IMAGING NEUROREPORT , 2005 .

[23]  Tony Lindeberg,et al.  Scale-Space Theory in Computer Vision , 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[24]  N. Sadato,et al.  Influence of ANOVA Design and Anatomical Standardization on Statistical Mapping for PET Activation , 1998, NeuroImage.

[25]  Michael Unser,et al.  Splines: a perfect fit for signal and image processing , 1999, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[26]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Spatial registration and normalization of images , 1995 .

[27]  P. Roland,et al.  Comparison of spatial normalization procedures and their impact on functional maps , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[28]  J C Mazziotta,et al.  Automated image registration: II. Intersubject validation of linear and nonlinear models. , 1998, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[29]  Gary E. Christensen,et al.  Consistent image registration , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[30]  R. Woods,et al.  Intersubject analysis of fMRI data using spatial normalization. , 1997 .

[31]  Hervé Delingette,et al.  Automatic Detection and Segmentation of Evolving Processes in 3D Medical Images: Application to Multiple Sclerosis , 1999, IPMI.

[32]  Iwao Kanno,et al.  Automatic detection of the mid-sagittal plane in 3-D brain images , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.