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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  May 2010

FSL May 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FSLVBM - question about modulation and design

From:

Jesper Andersson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 4 May 2010 20:23:13 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

Hi Darren,

hope all is well.

> I have read through the list but still have a question about FSLVBM  
> and setting up a proper model. My understanding is that the gray  
> matter data are modulated by the Jacobian, but that the  
> recommendation is that a covariate for total intracranial volume is  
> not necessary in the analysis. I'm not sure I understand why. Does  
> the Jacobian include both affine and non-linear aspects of the  
> normalization? If so wouldn't modulating by the affine scaling mean  
> that size differences would not be accounted for between subjects  
> any more?

The contributions to the Jacobian from the affine and the non-linear  
parts of the transform are kept separate within fnirt. That allows us  
to specify the range of allowed Jacobians based on the full Jacobian  
(which makes sense) while the modulation of the gray matter maps is  
based on the non-linear part only.

It really isn't straightforward to say what is the correct thing to do  
in terms of modulation.

Let us say e.g. that we have two brains that are identical, save for  
one being twice as big (volume) compared to the other. So we perform  
an affine registration without any modulation, and we conclude they  
are identical. If on the other hand we modulate the gray matter  
content based on that affine transform we would conclude that the  
larger brain has twice as much gray matter, and hence that there are  
massive differences all along the cortex.

What makes most sense?

I would say that from the perspective of what we are typically  
interested in the former makes most sense, i.e. that in fact there is  
no difference between the two brains (or in other words that any  
difference can be attributed to an uninteresting size difference).

Let us now instead say that we have two other brains that are  
identical in size save for a thinning of the somatosensory cortex. Let  
us further say that we register the thin cortex guy to the thick  
cortex guy using some very fancy registration algorithm that results  
in two identical looking images. We segment these images, compare the  
gray matter segments and conclude that the brains are identical.

This clearly doesn't make sense, and the suggested way to solve that  
is by modulating by the local (non-linear) Jacobian which in this case  
would mean that we multiply the gray matter segment of the thin cortex  
guy by 0.5 along the somatosensory cortex. And when comparing the  
modulated gray matter segment to thick cortex guy we conclude,  
rightly, that thin cortex guy has less gray matter in the  
somatosensory cortex.

So it is clear that it makes sense to modulate the very local volume  
changes, and to me it also makes sense not to modulate global scaling  
changes. So where is the cutoff in terms of spatial frequency of  
warps? I don't really know, and clearly our choice to discard global  
(affine) volume changes and modulate all non-affine volume changes is  
an arbitrary one that is based more on procedural convenience of  
division of volume changes than on anything else. On the other hand I  
don't know if anyone has a more principled suggestion.

As for the inclusion/non-inclusion of global scaling parameters in the  
subsequent GLM analysis I don't think there are any clear and hard  
rules there either. If one e.g. think that "smaller brains tend to  
have proportionally thicker cortices" (I have no idea if that is the  
case or not) then as one scale those brains up to fit the template  
their cortices will end up being slightly thicker (have "more" gray  
matter) their bigger brained peers. Then the question is if this is an  
interesting effect or not? If one considers this to be an  
uninteresting general size effect then one would want to get rid of  
this source of variability and the way to do that would be to include  
it as a covariate.

> A second question is whether FSLVBM can be used on white matter?  If  
> so would it just be a matter of changing the Template specification  
> at the top of the fslvbm_2_template script, and then making sure  
> files were named appropriately through, e.g., WM for GM in file names?

Procedurally it would be very simple, much as you suggest. As for  
interpretation I am uncertain as to what people think that white  
matter VBM means.

Good luck Jesper

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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