Systematic Differences Between Perceptually Relevant Image Statistics of Brain MRI and Natural Images

It is well-known that the human visual system is adapted to the statistical structure of natural scenes. Yet there are important classes of images – for example, medical images – that are not natural scenes, and therefore, that are expected to have statistical properties that deviate from the class of images that shaped the evolution and development of human vision. Here, focusing on structural brain MRI images, we quantify and characterize these deviations in terms of a set of local image statistics to which human visual sensitivity has been well-characterized, and that has previously been used for natural image analysis. We analyzed MRI images in multiple databases including T1-weighted and FLAIR sequence types, and simulated MRI images based on a published image simulation procedure for T1 images, which we also modified to generate FLAIR images. We first computed the power spectra of MRI images; spectral slopes were in the range −2.6 to −3.1 for T1 sequences, and −2.2 to −2.7 for FLAIR sequences. Analysis of local image statistics was then carried out on whitened images. For all of the databases as well as for the simulated images, we found that the three-point correlations contributed substantially to the differences between the “texture” of randomly selected ROIs. The informative nature of three-point correlations for brain MRI was greater than for natural images, and also disproportionate to human visual sensitivity. As this finding was consistent across databases, it is likely to result from brain geometry at the scale of brain MRI resolution, rather than characteristics of specific imaging and reconstruction methods.

[1]  J. Victor,et al.  The unsteady eye: an information-processing stage, not a bug , 2015, Trends in Neurosciences.

[2]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Nonlinear Extraction of Independent Components of Natural Images Using Radial Gaussianization , 2009, Neural Computation.

[3]  Yair Weiss,et al.  "Natural Images, Gaussian Mixtures and Dead Leaves" , 2012, NIPS.

[4]  Jonathan D. Victor,et al.  Recurrent Network Dynamics; a Link between Form and Motion , 2017, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[5]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[6]  D. Louis Collins,et al.  Design and construction of a realistic digital brain phantom , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  An Extensible MRI Simulator for Post-Processing Evaluation , 1996, VBC.

[8]  Jens Haueisen,et al.  Similarities Between Simulated Spatial Spectra of Scalp EEG, MEG and Structural MRI , 2009, Brain Topography.

[9]  R. K. Agrawal,et al.  First and Second Order Statistics Features for Classification of Magnetic Resonance Brain Images , 2012 .

[10]  A.V. Oppenheim,et al.  The importance of phase in signals , 1980, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[11]  ContoursJames H. Elder The Statistics of Natural Image , 1998 .

[12]  Qin Hu,et al.  Two-Dimensional Hermite Filters Simplify the Description of High-Order Statistics of Natural Images , 2016, bioRxiv.

[13]  David Pfau,et al.  Dead leaves and the dirty ground: low-level image statistics in transmissive and occlusive imaging environments. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[14]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[15]  John G. Csernansky,et al.  Open Access Series of Imaging Studies (OASIS): Cross-sectional MRI Data in Young, Middle Aged, Nondemented, and Demented Older Adults , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  P. Mitra,et al.  Analysis of dynamic brain imaging data. , 1998, Biophysical journal.

[17]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Variance predicts salience in central sensory processing , 2014, eLife.

[18]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  Gonzalo G. de Polavieja,et al.  Network Adaptation Improves Temporal Representation of Naturalistic Stimuli in Drosophila Eye: I Dynamics , 2009, PloS one.

[20]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[21]  Gasper Tkacik,et al.  Local statistics in natural scenes predict the saliency of synthetic textures , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  D. Burr,et al.  Feature detection in human vision: a phase-dependent energy model , 1988, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[23]  C. Jack,et al.  Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative , 2008 .

[24]  Daniel J. Thengone,et al.  Perception of second- and third-order orientation signals and their interactions. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[25]  A. Evans,et al.  MRI simulation-based evaluation of image-processing and classification methods , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[26]  J. Boone,et al.  Non-Gaussian statistical properties of breast images. , 2012, Medical physics.

[27]  P Tiwari,et al.  Computer-Extracted Texture Features to Distinguish Cerebral Radionecrosis from Recurrent Brain Tumors on Multiparametric MRI: A Feasibility Study , 2016, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[28]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  What Does the Retina Know about Natural Scenes? , 1992, Neural Computation.

[29]  Daniel J. Thengone,et al.  A perceptual space of local image statistics , 2015, Vision Research.

[30]  D J Field,et al.  Local Contrast in Natural Images: Normalisation and Coding Efficiency , 2000, Perception.

[31]  M. Bronskill,et al.  Noise and filtration in magnetic resonance imaging. , 1985, Medical physics.

[32]  Pantelis Georgiadis,et al.  Pattern recognition system for the discrimination of multiple sclerosis from cerebral microangiopathy lesions based on texture analysis of magnetic resonance images. , 2009, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[33]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Local image statistics: maximum-entropy constructions and perceptual salience. , 2012, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[34]  William Bialek,et al.  Statistics of Natural Images: Scaling in the Woods , 1993, NIPS.

[35]  S Marcelja,et al.  Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[36]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  MRI Simulation Based Evaluation and Classifications Methods , 1999, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[37]  Daniel L. Ruderman,et al.  Origins of scaling in natural images , 1996, Vision Research.

[38]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  On seeing stuff: the perception of materials by humans and machines , 2001, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

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

[40]  D Wyper,et al.  MR Relaxation Times of Cerebrospinal Fluid , 1987, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[41]  B. Willmore,et al.  Neural Representation of Natural Images in Visual Area V2 , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  Nicole C. Rust,et al.  In praise of artifice , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.