The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Automatic 3D Intersubject Registration of MR Volumetric Data in Standardized Talairach Space
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In both diagnostic and research applications, the interpretation of MR images of the human brain is facilitated when different data sets can be compared by visual inspection of equivalent anatomical planes. Quantitative analysis with predefined atlas templates often requires the initial alignment of atlas and image planes. Unfortunately, the axial planes acquired during separate scanning sessions are often different in their relative position and orientation, and these slices are not coplanar with those in the atlas. We have developed a completely automatic method to register a given volumetric data set with Talairach stereotaxic coordinate system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The registration method is based on multi-scale, three-dimensional (3D) cross-correlation with an average (n > 300) MR brain image volume aligned with the Talariach stereotaxic space. Once the data set is re-sampled by the transformation recovered by the algorithm, atlas slices can be directly superimposed on the corresponding slices of the re-sampled volume. the use of such a standardized space also allows the direct comparison, voxel to voxel, of two or more data sets brought into stereotaxic space. RESULTS: With use of a two-tailed Student t test for paired samples, there was no significant difference in the transformation parameters recovered by the automatic algorithm when compared with two manual landmark-based methods (p > 0.1 for all parameters except y-scale, where p > 0.05). Using root-mean-square difference between normalized voxel intensities as an unbiased measure of registration, we show that when estimated and averaged over 60 volumetric MR images in standard space, this measure was 30% lower for the automatic technique than the manual method, indicating better registrations. Likewise, the automatic method showed a 57% reduction in standard deviation, implying a more stable technique. The algorithm is able to recover the transformation even when data are missing from the top or bottom of the volume. CONCLUSION: We present a fully automatic registration method to map volumetric data into stereotaxic space that yields results comparable with those of manually based techniques. The method requires no manual identification of points or contours and therefore does not suffer the drawbacks involved in user intervention such as reproducibility and interobserver variability.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“It has been shown that the automatic stereotaxic transformation is as accurate as the manual procedure but shows higher stability (Collins et al., 1994).”
From Self-esteem, locus of control, hippocampal volume, and cortisol regulation in young and old adulthood (2005) · cites this paper as Collins et al., 1994
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard, O., Delcroix, N., Mazoyer, B., & Joliot, M. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0978 · Cited by 16,319
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
“9), all with the MNI 305 brain (Collins et al., 1994) as the reference image.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCortical Surface-Based Analysis
Dale, A. M., Fischl, B., & Sereno, M. I. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0395 · Cited by 10,910
“We use the automated Talairach registration procedure developed and distributed by the Montreal Neurological Institute (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988; Collins et al., 1994) to compute the transformation matrix from a high resolution T1-weighted scan taken using a short 3-”
MethodFischl, B., Salat, D. H., Busa, E., Albert, M., Dieterich, M., Haselgrove, C., van der Kouwe, A., Killiany, R., Kennedy, D., Klaveness, S., et al. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00569-x · Cited by 8,610
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
“3(a)), all with rtered to a given reference image, I , giving transformations the MNI 305 brain (Collins et al., 1994) as the reference T .”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, D. L., Neelin, P., Peters, T. M., & Evans, A. C.
- Affiliations
- Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 192-205
- ISSN
- 0363-8715 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141796362
- Cited by
- 3,431
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 134 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 108 · 2017: 102 · 2016: 114 · 2015: 154 · 2014: 157 · 2013: 160 · 2012: 160
- FWCI
- 37.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
- Keywords
- 3D registration, automatic image registration, interobserver variability
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Basal Ganglia, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebellum, Cerebral Cortex, Cerebral Ventricles, Corpus Callosum, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Structural, Stereotaxic Techniques
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