A Statistical Model for Rigid Image Registration Performance: The Influence of Soft-Tissue Deformation as a Confounding Noise Source

Soft-tissue deformation presents a confounding factor to rigid image registration by introducing image content inconsistent with the underlying motion model, presenting non-correspondent structure with potentially high power, and creating local minima that challenge iterative optimization. In this paper, we introduce a model for registration performance that includes deformable soft tissue as a power-law noise distribution within a statistical framework describing the Cramer–Rao lower bound (CRLB) and root-mean-squared error (RMSE) in registration performance. The model incorporates both cross-correlation and gradient-based similarity metrics, and the model was tested in application to 3D–2D (CT-to-radiograph) and 3D–3D (CT-to-CT) image registration. Predictions accurately reflect the trends in registration error as a function of dose (quantum noise), and the choice of similarity metrics for both registration scenarios. Incorporating soft-tissue deformation as a noise source yields important insight on the limits of registration performance with respect to algorithm design and the clinical application or anatomical context. For example, the model quantifies the advantage of gradient-based similarity metrics in 3D–2D registration, identifies the low-dose limits of registration performance, and reveals the conditions for which the registration performance is fundamentally limited by soft-tissue deformation.

[1]  Amod Jog,et al.  Effects of spatial resolution on image registration , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  J. Webster Stayman,et al.  Task-Driven Optimization of Fluence Field and Regularization for Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction in Computed Tomography , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Luis Ibáñez,et al.  The Design of SimpleITK , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..

[4]  Guillermo Sapiro,et al.  Fundamental Limits in Multi-Image Alignment , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[5]  Klamer Schutte,et al.  Performance of optimal registration estimators , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[6]  Arthur E. Burgess,et al.  Mammographic structure: data preparation and spatial statistics analysis , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[7]  John M Boone,et al.  Characterizing anatomical variability in breast CT images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  Runze Han,et al.  Effects of Image Quality on the Fundamental Limits of Image Registration Accuracy , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Anatomical background and generalized detectability in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  Runze Han,et al.  A statistical model for image registration performance: effect of tissue deformation , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[11]  Arthur E Burgess,et al.  Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  D. Robinson,et al.  Fundamental performance limits in image registration , 2004, Proceedings 2003 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.03CH37429).

[13]  Jürgen Weese,et al.  A comparison of similarity measures for use in 2-D-3-D medical image registration , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[14]  A. Sisniega,et al.  Technical Note: spektr 3.0—A computational tool for x-ray spectrum modeling and analysis , 2016, Medical physics.

[15]  S. Schafer,et al.  Automatic localization of vertebral levels in x-ray fluoroscopy using 3D-2D registration: a tool to reduce wrong-site surgery , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  P. Welch The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , 1967 .

[17]  Kacem Chehdi,et al.  A Precise Lower Bound on Image Subpixel Registration Accuracy , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[18]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  On the orientation of mammographic structure. , 2011, Medical physics.

[19]  Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen,et al.  Generalized DQE analysis of dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[21]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[22]  Guillermo Sapiro,et al.  A Practical Guide to Multi-Image Alignment , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).

[23]  A Uneri,et al.  3D–2D image registration for target localization in spine surgery: investigation of similarity metrics providing robustness to content mismatch , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  M F Kijewski,et al.  The noise power spectrum of CT images. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Cascaded systems analysis of the 3D noise transfer characteristics of flat-panel cone-beam CT. , 2008, Medical physics.

[26]  J. Boone,et al.  Association between power law coefficients of the anatomical noise power spectrum and lesion detectability in breast imaging modalities. , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  A. Burgess Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[28]  J Yorkston,et al.  Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology. , 1997, Medical physics.

[29]  A E Burgess Visual signal detection with two-component noise: low-pass spectrum effects. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[30]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Optimization of dual-energy imaging systems using generalized NEQ and imaging task. , 2006, Medical physics.

[31]  Imam Samil Yetik,et al.  Performance bounds on image registration , 2006, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[32]  D. Jaffray,et al.  Optimization of x-ray imaging geometry (with specific application to flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography). , 2000, Medical physics.

[33]  Jeffrey Harold Siewerdsen Signal, noise, and detective quantum efficiency of amorphous-silicon:hydrogen flat-panel imagers. , 1998 .

[34]  H Bosmans,et al.  Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. , 2013, Medical physics.

[35]  Pramod K. Varshney,et al.  Ziv–Zakai Bounds on Image Registration , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.