The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A new method for improving functional-to-structural MRI alignment using local Pearson correlation
Open accessAbstract
Accurate registration of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) T2-weighted volumes to same-subject high-resolution T1-weighted structural volumes is important for Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) FMRI and crucial for applications such as cortical surface-based analyses and pre-surgical planning. Such registration is generally implemented by minimizing a cost functional, which measures the mismatch between two image volumes over the group of proper affine transformations. Widely used cost functionals, such as mutual information (MI) and correlation ratio (CR), appear to yield decent alignments when visually judged by matching outer brain contours. However, close inspection reveals that internal brain structures are often significantly misaligned. Poor registration is most evident in the ventricles and sulcal folds, where CSF is concentrated. This observation motivated our development of an improved modality-specific cost functional which uses a weighted local Pearson coefficient (LPC) to align T2- and T1-weighted images. In the absence of an alignment gold standard, we used three human observers blinded to registration method to provide an independent assessment of the quality of the registration for each cost functional. We found that LPC performed significantly better (p<0.001) than generic cost functionals including MI and CR. Generic cost functionals were very often not minimal near the best alignment, thereby suggesting that optimization is not the cause of their failure. Lastly, we emphasize the importance of precise visual inspection of alignment quality and present an automated method for generating composite images that help capture errors of misalignment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“compared to generic cost functionals, provides superior spatial alignment between T2*- and T1-weighted images in brain structures near the ventricles (Saad et al., 2009).”
From Phasic and sustained fear in humans elicits distinct patterns of brain activity (2011) · cites this paper as Saad et al., 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages
Cox, R. W. (1996) · Computers and Biomedical Research · doi:10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014 · Cited by 10,913
Self-citationCortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910
(1932) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,568
Hapeman, D. E., & Agresti, A. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,407
A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images
Jenkinson, M., & Smith, S. M. (2001) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)00036-6 · Cited by 7,018
Cortical Surface-Based Analysis
Fischl, B., Sereno, M. I., & Dale, A. M. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0396 · Cited by 6,147
Automatic 3D intersubject registration of MR volumetric data in standardized Talairach space
Collins, D. L., Neelin, P., Peters, T. M., & Evans, A. C. (1994) · Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography · doi:10.1097/00004728-199403000-00005 · Cited by 3,431 · cited 1×
“The use of crosscorrelation is common as a measure of matching in image processing and in MRI in particular (Collins et al., 1994); however, the LPC approach differs by its use of the weighting function and of localized estimates that are later combined nonlinearly.”
BackgroundAn overlap invariant entropy measure of 3D medical image alignment
Studholme, C., Hill, D., & Hawkes, D. J. (1999) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(98)00091-0 · Cited by 2,167
Multi-modal volume registration by maximization of mutual information
Wells, W. M., Viola, P. A., Atsumi, H., Nakajima, S., & Kikinis, R. (1996) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)80004-9 · Cited by 1,961
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Taneja, 2005, Refinement inequalities among symmetric divergence measures, Aust. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 2, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-based registration
Greve, D. N., & Fischl, B. R. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060 · Cited by 3,553
Highly accurate inverse consistent registration: A robust approach
Reuter, M., Rosas, H. D., & Fischl, B. R. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.020 · Cited by 1,443
The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates
Birn, R. M., Molloy, E. K., Patriat, R., Parker, T., Meier, T. B., Kirk, G. R., Nair, V. A., Meyerand, M. E., & Prabhakaran, V. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.099 · Cited by 875
Zhang, M., Zhu, L., Zhou, G., Hao, T., Qiu, C., Zhao, Z., Hu, Q., Larson, B. W., Zhu, H., Ma, Z., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20580-8 · Cited by 670
Felger, J. C., Li, Z., Haroon, E., Woolwine, B. J., Jung, M. Y., Hu, X., & Miller, A. H. (2016) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2015.168 · Cited by 620
Metadata
- Authors
- Saad, Z. S., Glen, D. R., Chen, G., Beauchamp, M. S., Desai, R., & Cox, R. W.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cox, Robert W.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 839-848
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2649831
- OpenAlex
- W2018731294
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 20.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Mental Health (Z01MH002888)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC010783, R03DC008416)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS033576, 2R01NS33576-11)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- cost functional, mutual information, correlation ratio, BOLD fMRI, surgical planning, composite images, CsF
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Enhancement, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistics as Topic, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, Echo-Planar Imaging, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
