> I was asked by a manuscript reviewer about the accuracy and
> reliability/reproducibility of the spatial normalization in SPM. So far I
> have not found any reference for this question. Can anybody give some clue?
> Thanks in advance.
The following paper looks at registration accuracy of spatial normalisation
in SPM:
P. Hellier, J. Ashburner, I. Corouge, C. Barillot, K.J. Friston, Inter subject
registration of functional and anatomical data using SPM, in Medical
Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention 2002, MICCAI'02, LNCS 2489,
Pages 590-587, Tokyo, September 2002.
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=16jltjuwyhp1f0guubex&referrer=parent&backto=issue,74,85;journal,269,1268;linkingpublicationresults,id:105633,1
You can compare it with other approaches evaluated using the same techniques
in:
Retrospective Evaluation of Inter-subject Brain Registration (2001)
P. Hellier, C. Barillot, I. Corouge, B. Gibaud, G. Le Goualher, L. Collins,
A. Evans, G. Malandain, N. Ayache. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/hellier01retrospective.html
The following methods have been evaluated, and I assume that the "best" method
is the one with the smallest average registration error.
A ANIMAL - by Louis Collins
D DEMON - from INRIA
M Rigid-body using mutual information
P Proportional squaring of Talairach
R Another method from INRIA
S SPM99 - using default settings, but with skulls stripped from the images.
There were a number of criteria evaluated. The following table shows
percentage overlap between grey matter, percentage overlap between
white matter (big values better), and average distances (in mm) between
registered sulci (small values better):
A 91.9 89.6 9.9
D 95.8 96.7 10.3
M 88.8 87.5 11.5
P 93.5 95.1 10.7
R 93.9 95.0 10.8
S 94.1 95.7 8.7
Best regards,
-John
--
Dr John Ashburner.
Functional Imaging Lab., 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
tel: +44 (0)20 78337491 or +44 (0)20 78373611 x4381
fax: +44 (0)20 78131420 http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~john
|