Difference between revisions of "Inter-slice Motion Correction for fMRI"

From NAMIC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
[[Image:original.jpg]]
 
[[Image:original.jpg]]
Volume rendering
+
Volume rendering of original volume
  
  
[[Image:Example.jpg]]
+
[[Image:resampled.jpg]]
 
+
Volume rendering of up-sampled volume (0.5x0.5mm in axial plane)
  
 +
[[Image:affine-rms-registered.jpg]]
 +
Volume rendering of co-registered volume
  
 
[[Image:firdaus_affine_rms.png]]
 
[[Image:firdaus_affine_rms.png]]
 
Affine motion with mean square error metric
 
Affine motion with mean square error metric
  
+
 
 
[[Image:firdaus_affine_mi.png]]
 
[[Image:firdaus_affine_mi.png]]
 
Affine motion with Mattes MI error metric
 
Affine motion with Mattes MI error metric
 
  
 
=== Issues ===
 
=== Issues ===

Revision as of 17:31, 12 September 2007

Home < Inter-slice Motion Correction for fMRI

Objective

   * To perform inter-slice motion correction in fMR images using affine and non-rigid registration methods. 


Progress

   * Implemented and tested b-Spline/affine registration with Mattes-MI and KL metrics. 
   * Coding completed. However, results are far from satisfactory.
   * Progress (maybe) stymied by "poor" resolution of data.
   * Progress (maybe) stymied by "not-so-viable" metrics (MI, etc.).

Results

Affine

  • affine motion with all metrics degrades the inter-slice registration.

Non-Rigid

  • B-spline deformation with KL metric produces very minimal change (in a least squares sense), while MI produces more changes but doesn't look correct.

Images

Firdaus image 004.png Original fMRI


Original.jpg Volume rendering of original volume


Resampled.jpg Volume rendering of up-sampled volume (0.5x0.5mm in axial plane)

Affine-rms-registered.jpg Volume rendering of co-registered volume

Firdaus affine rms.png Affine motion with mean square error metric


Firdaus affine mi.png Affine motion with Mattes MI error metric

Issues

  • As can be seen any registration result looks more jagged (along the sagittal and coronal sections).
  • Low sampling rate and image noise - all the metrics are extremely non-smooth as a result.
  • Even the slightest change in initialization results in a large deviation in the registration result.



Open questions

   * Intensity normalization / histogram equalization - would these have any impact on inter-slice registration? Would they affect the computation of the joint-entropies for MI/KL metrics.
   * Should there be some regularization factor on the registration to limit the motion ?

To Do

   * Right now, registration is done on a slice by slice basis. However, due to the low resolution of fMRI and the absence of gradients result in low registration accuracy. We are investigating using alternative image-to-image metrics like the KL divergence. We are also looking at simultaneously registering multiple slices. 

Key Investigators

   * Firdaus Janoos, Raghu Machiraju, Steve Pieper, Wendy Plesniak.

Links