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

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  2003

SPM 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: VBM: Normalization error - Preserve Total

From:

"Goldfine, Andrew (NIH/NINDS)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Goldfine, Andrew (NIH/NINDS)

Date:

Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:52:52 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

 Thanks very much for your help.  We've been doing VBM outside the batch
mode and we're wondering how to use spm_write_sn for modulation outside the
batch mode (how to get it to call up the .img and the .mat files necessary).

Also, looking through the optimised VBM match mode you sent out, it seems
that it uses the default SPM T1 template rather than a template created from
our population.  How can we change the batch to use our population template?

Thanks very much,

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Ashburner
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2/28/2003 7:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: VBM: Normalization error - Preserve Total

> We have been using the modulation step in VBM for the last step before
> segmentation.  With spm99 we would modulate the data after segmenting
it in
> the last step of VBM.  We figured that with spm2b we could save a step
and
> modulate the data during normalization before segmentation, but that
> doesn't work for some of my images and now we realize is actually
different
> than what we did before.  Should we be normalizing the images after
> segmentation like in spm99 using spm_preserve_volume?  Does that
script
> work in spm2b?

The segmented images should be modulated, rather than the images
that get segmented.  This is what the
        spm_write_sn(VT(1),prm,'modulate');
bit does.  It is the SPM2b equivalent of spm_preserve_volume.

If the spm_write_sn(V(i),prm,dnrm.write) part includes modulation, then
this may cause problems for the segmentation.

If the pre-processing involved segmenting before spatially normalising,
then this would save a couple of steps.  Unfortunately, I suspect that
this is suboptimal because the segmentation routines work best on
spatially normalised data, as it allows the prior probability images
to be overlaid better.  If un-normalised images are segmented, then only
an affine registration is done in order to overlay the priors.  This
is not as accurate as overlaying the priors on non-linearly warped
images.

> And how can I look to see if Inf and -Inf values are in my image?

If you are using the script containing:
         VN  = spm_write_sn(V(i),prm,dnrm.write);
Then insert a line that says:

        disp([min(VN.dat(:)) max(VN.dat(:))])

Best regards,
-John

> The only way I have so far been able to replicate creating an image
with
> such problems is by including Inf and -Inf in the image that is
written.
> The spm_write_vol.m function does not check for these, so it messes
> up the scalefactors etc.  I can't figure out why such Inf and -Inf
> values
> should arise though.
>
> Are you sure that modulating the original normalised images is the
right
> thing to do?  This is likely to cause problems during the segmentation
> stage.  If the images were initially fairly uniformly scaled, then the
> modulation will introduce a lot of smooth intensity non-uniformity,
> making
> segmentation slightly harder.
>
>
> The "preserve total" or "preserve concentration" options relate to the
> modulation done during VBM.  If spatial normalisation doubles the
volume
> of a region, then the "preserve total" option will reduce its
intensity
> by a half so that the total amount of signal is preserved.
>
> Consider a multi-subject fMRI experiment where all subjects uniformly
> activate a region of 10 voxels such that an activation causes a signal
> increase of 1 unit.  After spatial normalisation, these 10 voxels will
> be shrunk for some subjects, and enlarged for others.  If the signal
> concentration is preserved, then after smoothing, the subjects that
> have the shrunken region will have lower activation signal than the
> subjects with an expanded region. This is probably not what people
want
> from their analyses.
>
> The preserve total option is an alternative that should allow signal
> to be preserved.  I don't know if this option has a long term future,
> but I can envisage situations in which it maybe useful.

--
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

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
2000
1999
1998


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