Reducing Inter-subject Anatomical Variation : Analysis of the Functional Activity in Auditory Cortex and Superior Temporal Region using HAMMER

Conventional group analysis of functional MRI (fMRI) data often involves spatial matching of individual data by registering every subject to an anatomical reference. Due to the high degree of intersubject anatomical variability, a low-resolution average anatomical model is typically used as the target template, and/or smoothing kernels are applied to the fMRI data to spatially blur images. However, such smoothing can make it difficult to detect small regions such as auditory cortex when anatomical morphology varies among subjects. Here, we investigate the impact of using a high-dimensional (high-d) registration technique (HAMMER) on fMRI data analysis. It is shown that HAMMERbased analysis results in an enhanced functional signal-to-noise ratio (fSNR) with more localized activation patterns. The technique is validated against a commonly used low-dimensional (low-d) normalization (SPM2). The comparison also includes the effect of template spatial resolution, and the effect of smoothing on fSNR and on activation localization accuracy. The results demonstrate significant improvement in fSNR using HAMMER compared to conventional analysis using SPM, with more precisely localized activation foci.

[1]  Yanxi Liu,et al.  FEATURE-BASED VS. INTENSITY-BASED BRAIN IMAGE REGISTRATION: COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON USING MUTUAL INFORMATION , 2007, 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[2]  R. Woods,et al.  Mathematical/computational challenges in creating deformable and probabilistic atlases of the human brain , 2000, Human brain mapping.

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

[4]  A. Dale,et al.  High‐resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[5]  J Mazziotta,et al.  A probabilistic atlas and reference system for the human brain: International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM). , 2001, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

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

[8]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach , 1994 .

[9]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  HAMMER: hierarchical attribute matching mechanism for elastic registration , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[11]  M. Raichle,et al.  A Stereotactic Method of Anatomical Localization for Positron Emission Tomography , 1985, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  R. Rabbitt,et al.  3D brain mapping using a deformable neuroanatomy. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.