JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FSL Archives


FSL Archives

FSL Archives


FSL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  2003

FSL 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: registration issues

From:

Johanna Pekkola <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:50:47 +0300

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (112 lines)

Hello,

and many thanks for taking time to check this registration problem.

I tried registration straight to highres as you suggested. It seemed
really good but when I tested by drawing some spots to anatomical landmarks and
running these spots through the same registration (with the same matrices)
the spots were misplaced in craniocaudal direction. The displacement was not
great (about 1 cm) but still so much that it is a problem since I am
trying to disclose a small anatomical area in my analysis.

I guess this happens easily when you try to register an axial epi T2 with
some distortion to sagittal T1 and have to use many degrees of freedom.
I would like to be able to control the craniocaudal displacement and slice
tilting by using the T1 FSE axial volume taken with the same slices as the
epi-volume as initial highres image and giving only 3 DOF in
epi2initial_highres phase but I cant get a good registration between
these two.

You mentioned that the voxel sizes (22 FOV, 64x64 matrix in epi, 22 FOV,
256x256 matrix in initial highres) do not match between epi and initial
highres. To get around this, I changed the voxel size in initial highres
to be the same as in epi. Now both volumes have 22cm FOV, 64x64 matrix and
28 slices.

When I tried to register these two with 3DOF, no search there was
only 26 slices in the output and the slices are misplaced so, that slice
13 in the output looks the same as slice 15 in initial highres etc.

I am puzzled about what happens here - to my understanding this should be
a really simple registration? I have put example images on this
(example_func.hdr&img, T1_64_mat.hdr&img and the registration output.hdr&img)
in

amiftp.hut.fi
lce/example_data/epi_T1_64mat

in case you would like to see how they look.

Best regards,
Johanna Pekkola
lce/TKK
Espoo, Finland


On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Stephen Smith wrote:

> Hi, thanks for sending the data. The problem is that, with the 3DOF
> initial registration, your voxel sizes must be slightly out in one image
> or the other; the 3DOF translation-only registration cannot fix that.
>
> However, you actually have quite a good field-of-view in the fmri data, so
> you can just turn off the registration to "initial structural image"; I
> tried this and the remaining two registrations worked fine.
>
> Thanks, Steve.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Johanna Pekkola wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > and thanks for your help last time.
> >
> > Now, I would like to ask for your advice in regisration-related problems.
> > I have tried many things but cannot seem to get around this.
> >
> > For each subject (10) I have EPI-images (28 axial oblique slices with 3.4
> > mm slice thickness, T1 FSE images with exactly the same slice prescription
> > but better in-plane resolution and a sagittal 3D SPGR volume.
> >
> > In FEAT registration I have used the axial T1 images as initial highres
> > and 3D SPGR as highres. I run into problems in the first registration step
> > (epi to initial highres).
> >
> > With all DOF (3,6,7,9,12) the epi-images seem to get
> > tilted in respect to T1 so, that the frontal pole rises and occipital
> > areas are lowered. Also, even with 3DOF and no search the stack of
> > epi-images is misplaced in respect to T1 so, that there are 2-3 epi-slices
> > below the bottommost T1 slice.
> >
> > Using 7 DOF of more the cranial and caudal limits of epi- and T1 slice
> > stacks do correspond to each other quite well but the epi-images are magnified
> > so that most of the cortical surface ends up outside the T1 brain area.
> > Also, recognizable landmarks such as sylvian fissure are visibly
> > displaced between the two volumes.
> >
> > Am I correct to think that when the same slice presciption has been
> > used for epi and T1 the slices should not get misplaced in respect to
> > each other like this?
> >
> > Is there something you could recommend?
> >
> > With Best Regards,
> >
> > Johanna Pekkola
> > LCE/TKK
> > Espoo
> > Finland
> >
>
> Stephen M. Smith DPhil
> Associate Director, FMRIB and Analysis Research Coordinator
>
> Oxford University Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain
> John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
> +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
>
> [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager