Quantitative comparison of AIR, SPM, and the fully deformable model for atlas‐based segmentation of functional and structural MR images

Typical packages used for coregistration in functional image analyses include automated image registration (AIR) and statistical parametric mapping (SPM). However, both methods have limited‐dimension deformation models. A fully deformable model, which combines the piecewise linear registration for coarse alignment with demons algorithm for voxel‐level refinement, allows a higher degree of spatial deformation. This leads to a more accurate colocalization of the functional signal from different subjects and therefore can produce a more reliable group average signal. We quantitatively compared the performance of the three different registration approaches through a series of experiments and we found that the fully deformable model consistently produces a more accurate structural segmentation and a more reliable functional signal colocalization than does AIR or SPM. Hum Brain Mapp, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Enhancement of MR Images Using Registration for Signal Averaging , 1998, Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography.

[2]  C. Rosano,et al.  Morphometric Analysis of Gray Matter Volume in Demented Older Adults: Exploratory Analysis of the Cardiovascular Health Study Brain MRI Database , 2005, Neuroepidemiology.

[3]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Animal: Validation and Applications of Nonlinear Registration-Based Segmentation , 1997, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[4]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  3-d deformable registration using a statistical atlas with applications in medicine , 1999 .

[5]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Pierre Hellier,et al.  Hierarchical estimation of a dense deformation field for 3-D robust registration , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

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

[9]  Jean-Philippe Thirion,et al.  Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell's demons , 1998, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  Jack L. Lancaster,et al.  Clustered pixels analysis for functional MRI activation studies of the human brain , 1995 .

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

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

[13]  Terry S. Yoo,et al.  Insight into Images: Principles and Practice for Segmentation, Registration, and Image Analysis , 2004 .

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

[15]  James C. Gee,et al.  Effect of spatial normalization on analysis of functional data , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[16]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Retrospective evaluation of intersubject brain registration , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. , 1998, Science.

[18]  David Metcalf,et al.  A Digital Brain Atlas for Surgical Planning, Model-Driven Segmentation, and Teaching , 1996, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

[19]  Meritxell Bach Cuadra,et al.  Atlas-based segmentation and classification of magnetic resonance brain images , 2003 .

[20]  Isabelle Corouge,et al.  Inter Subject Registration of Functional and Anatomical Data Using SPM , 2002, MICCAI.

[21]  Paul M. Thompson,et al.  Atlas-based hippocampus segmentation in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment , 2005, NeuroImage.