Evaluating the validity of volume-based and surface-based brain image registration for developmental cognitive neuroscience studies in children 4 to 11years of age
Open accessAbstract
Understanding the neurophysiology of human cognitive development relies on methods that enable accurate comparison of structural and functional neuroimaging data across brains from people of different ages. A fundamental question is whether the substantial brain growth and related changes in brain morphology that occur in early childhood permit valid comparisons of brain structure and function across ages. Here we investigated whether valid comparisons can be made in children from ages 4 to 11, and whether there are differences in the use of volume-based versus surface-based registration approaches for aligning structural landmarks across these ages. Regions corresponding to the calcarine sulcus, central sulcus, and Sylvian fissure in both the hemispheres were manually labeled on T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance images from 31 children ranging in age from 4.2 to 11.2years old. Quantitative measures of shape similarity and volumetric-overlap of these manually labeled regions were calculated when brains were aligned using a 12-parameter affine transform, SPM's nonlinear normalization, a diffeomorphic registration (ANTS), and FreeSurfer's surface-based registration. Registration error for normalization into a common reference framework across participants in this age range was lower than commonly used functional imaging resolutions. Surface-based registration provided significantly better alignment of cortical landmarks than volume-based registration. In addition, registering children's brains to a common space does not result in an age-associated bias between older and younger children, making it feasible to accurately compare structural properties and patterns of brain activation in children from ages 4 to 11.
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
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?
Freesurfer provides significantly better alignment of cortical landmarks than volume-based algorithms in cohorts of younger participants age 4-11 years old.
“Freesurfer has been shown to provide a significantly better alignment of cortical landmarks than volume based algorithms in cohorts of younger participants age 4–11 years old (Ghosh et al., 2010).”
From Quantifying cortical development in typically developing toddlers and young children, 1–6 years of age (2017) · cites this paper as Ghosh et al., 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 281
- Authors
- Ghosh, S. S., Kakunoori, S., Augustinack, J., Nieto-Castanon, A., Kovelman, I., Gaab, N., Christodoulou, J. A., Triantafyllou, C., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Fischl, B.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ghosh, Satrajit S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-93
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2914629
- OpenAlex
- W2147632293
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 8.54
- 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)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR14075)
- National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB006758, R03EB008673)
- National Institute on Aging (AG02238)
- National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS052585-01)
- National Institutes of Health (U54 EB005149)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- brain registration, surface registration, children, cognitive development, brain growth, cortical landmarks, calcarine sulcus, central sulcus, Sylvian fissure, diffeomorphic registration, affine registration, age bias, structural MRI, developmental cognitive neuroscience
- MeSH terms
- Aging, Algorithms, Brain, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Neurosciences, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, 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