TY - JOUR
T1 - Peeking into the black box of coregistration in clinical fMRI
T2 - Which registration methods are used and how well do they perform?
AU - Raslau, F. D.
AU - Lin, L. Y.
AU - Andersen, A. H.
AU - Powell, D. K.
AU - Smith, C. D.
AU - Escott, E. J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Society of Neuroradiology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/12/1
Y1 - 2018/12/1
N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interpretation of fMRI depends on accurate functional-to-structural alignment. This study explores registration methods used by FDA-approved software for clinical fMRI and aims to answer the following question: What is the degree of misalignment when registration is not performed, and how well do current registration methods perform? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of presurgical fMRI for brain tumors compares nonregistered images and 5 registration cost functions: Hellinger, mutual information, normalized mutual information, correlation ratio, and local Pearson correlation. To adjudicate the accuracy of coregistration, we edge-enhanced echo-planar maps and rated them for alignment with structural anatomy. Lesion-to-activation distances were measured to evaluate the effects of different cost functions. RESULTS: Transformation parameters were congruent among Hellinger, mutual information, normalized mutual information, and the correlation ratio but divergent from the local Pearson correlation. Edge-enhanced images validated the local Pearson correlation as the most accurate. Hellinger worsened misalignment in 59% of cases, primarily exaggerating the inferior translation; no cases were worsened by the local Pearson correlation. Three hundred twenty lesion-to-activation distances from 25 patients were analyzed among nonregistered images, Hellinger, and the local Pearson correlation. ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in the coronal (P .001) and sagittal (P .04) planes. If registration is not performed, 8% of cases may have a 3-mm discrepancy and up to a 5.6-mm lesion-to-activation distance difference. If a poor registration method is used, 23% of cases may have a 3-mm discrepancy and up to a 6.9-mm difference. CONCLUSIONS: The local Pearson correlation is a special-purpose cost function specifically designed for T2*–T1 coregistration and should be more widely incorporated into software tools as a better method for coregistration in clinical fMRI.
AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interpretation of fMRI depends on accurate functional-to-structural alignment. This study explores registration methods used by FDA-approved software for clinical fMRI and aims to answer the following question: What is the degree of misalignment when registration is not performed, and how well do current registration methods perform? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of presurgical fMRI for brain tumors compares nonregistered images and 5 registration cost functions: Hellinger, mutual information, normalized mutual information, correlation ratio, and local Pearson correlation. To adjudicate the accuracy of coregistration, we edge-enhanced echo-planar maps and rated them for alignment with structural anatomy. Lesion-to-activation distances were measured to evaluate the effects of different cost functions. RESULTS: Transformation parameters were congruent among Hellinger, mutual information, normalized mutual information, and the correlation ratio but divergent from the local Pearson correlation. Edge-enhanced images validated the local Pearson correlation as the most accurate. Hellinger worsened misalignment in 59% of cases, primarily exaggerating the inferior translation; no cases were worsened by the local Pearson correlation. Three hundred twenty lesion-to-activation distances from 25 patients were analyzed among nonregistered images, Hellinger, and the local Pearson correlation. ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in the coronal (P .001) and sagittal (P .04) planes. If registration is not performed, 8% of cases may have a 3-mm discrepancy and up to a 5.6-mm lesion-to-activation distance difference. If a poor registration method is used, 23% of cases may have a 3-mm discrepancy and up to a 6.9-mm difference. CONCLUSIONS: The local Pearson correlation is a special-purpose cost function specifically designed for T2*–T1 coregistration and should be more widely incorporated into software tools as a better method for coregistration in clinical fMRI.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059271873&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059271873&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A5846
DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A5846
M3 - Article
C2 - 30361428
AN - SCOPUS:85059271873
SN - 0195-6108
VL - 39
SP - 2332
EP - 2339
JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology
IS - 12
ER -