Cited by 640Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

MSM: a new flexible framework for Multimodal Surface Matching

Open access
Robinson, Emma C., Jbabdi, Saad, Glasser, Matthew F., Andersson, Jesper, Burgess, Gregory C., Harms, Michael P., Smith, Stephen M., Van Essen, David C. +1 more·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Surface-based cortical registration methods that are driven by geometrical features, such as folding, provide sub-optimal alignment of many functional areas due to variable correlation between cortical folding patterns and function. This has led to the proposal of new registration methods using features derived from functional and diffusion imaging. However, as yet there is no consensus over the best set of features for optimal alignment of brain function. In this paper we demonstrate the utility of a new Multimodal Surface Matching (MSM) algorithm capable of driving alignment using a wide variety of descriptors of brain architecture, function and connectivity. The versatility of the framework originates from adapting the discrete Markov Random Field (MRF) registration method to surface alignment. This has the benefit of being very flexible in the choice of a similarity measure and relatively insensitive to local minima. The method offers significant flexibility in the choice of feature set, and we demonstrate the advantages of this by performing registrations using univariate descriptors of surface curvature and myelination, multivariate feature sets derived from resting fMRI, and multimodal descriptors of surface curvature and myelination. We compare the results with two state of the art surface registration methods that use geometric features: FreeSurfer and Spherical Demons. In the future, the MSM technique will allow explorations into the best combinations of features and alignment strategies for inter-subject alignment of cortical functional areas for a wide range of neuroimaging data sets.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.069

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • New multimodal approaches that anchor surface-based registrations to other structural or functional characteristics of an individual are likely to improve subject-to-subject registrations and reduce intersubject variability.

    “New multimodal approaches that also anchor surface-based registrations to other structural or functional characteristics of an individual are likely to improve subject to subject registrations, and hence reduce intersubject variability, even more (e.g.(Glasser et al., 2016b; Robinson et al., 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Andersson JLR Jenkinson M Smith SM 2007 Non-linear registration aka spatial normalisation Tech rep FMRIB, University of Oxford
  2. Kwon D Lee KJ Yun ID Lee SU 2011 Nonrigid image registration using higher-order MRF model with dense local descriptor Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, E. C., Jbabdi, S., Glasser, M. F., Andersson, J., Burgess, G. C., Harms, M. P., Smith, S. M., Van Essen, D. C., & Jenkinson, M.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Jenkinson, Mark
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
100
Pages
414-426
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073588997
Cited by
640
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
19.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience at Washington University
  • NIH (F30-MH097312)
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
cortical surface registration, surface curvature, myelination, resting-state fMRI, multimodal image registration, FreeSurfer
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Young Adult

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