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  1999

SPM 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

From:

[log in to unmask] (John Ashburner)

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask] (John Ashburner)

Date:

Tue, 16 Mar 1999 10:38:47 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (79 lines)

I would guess that the starting estimates for the spatial normalization
are not so good.  The spatial normalization works by iteratively updating
its estimates of the parameters.  In the first iteration, the sum of
squared difference between the images is computed based on the starting
estimates.  Then these estimates are changed slightly so as to reduce
the sum of squared difference in the next iteration, and so on.

If the starting estimates are not sufficiently close to the final solution,
then it is very likely that the registration may get caught in a local
minimum.  An analagy would be to consider a blindfolded person who is asked
to find the highest point on earth.  All the person can do is to continue
climbing uphill.  Clearly our intrepid climber would not find the correct
solution from most starting points.

Our climber only has a two dimensional problem to solve.  The image
registration is a problem with many more dimensions (beginning with 12
for the affine registration - and going up to many more for the nonlinear
bit).

The starting estimates for the affine part of the spatial normalization
are from two sources:
1) The starting estimates for the affine registration as specified by the
spm_defaults.m file that can be modified by the Defaults button.  The
estimates are three translations in millimeters (in x, y and z), followed
by three rotations in radians (pitch, roll and yaw), three zooms (x, y and
z) and finally three shears.  By default, the zooms are [-1 1 1], which
causes a left-right flip in the x direction, but no flips in y and z.
Tweeking these starting estimates (possibly by trial and error) can give
you better results.

2) The ".mat" files of the images.  If the ".mat" files do not exist, then
the origin and voxel sizes specified in the image headers are used to
generate this information (see spm_matrix.m).  Ideally, before you do
anything with the data in SPM96, it is useful to set the values in the
voxel size and origin fields of the header.  Voxel sizes are in millimeters
- and represent the distances between the centres of adjascent voxels.
The origin field represents the co-ordinates of a voxel that is somewhere
close to the AC.  The first voxel in the image is at [1,1,1].

Once the images have ".mat" files associated with them, then the vox-size and
origin fields in the headers are ignored.  This is because much more
information can be described by these mat files - particularly the orientation
of the images.  Therefore, if you want to modify the origin field, then you
will have to delete the ".mat" files for the changes to have any effect.  When
you delete the ".mat" files, any changes made to them (via realignment or
coregistration) will be lost.

If your images are in a strange orientation, then you may need to modify the
defaults, setting rotations and negative zooms as appropriate.  You will also
need to confirm the left-right orientation of your images after spatial
normalization.

Also, if your images have a limited field of view, then it may be advisable to
reduce the number of parameters used for the spatial normalization.  Try
turning off the nonlinear part (by setting the number of basis functions to
zero via the Defaulst button).  If there are still problems, then try
reducing the number of affine registration parameters, possibly to something
like 9.

The "divide by zero" error is a result of your image and the template image
having no overlapping pixels.  From this position, it is not possible for
the registration to achieve a good solution (kind of like our blindfolded
climber falling off a cliff).

Regards,
-John

> does anybody know what a "divide by zero" error means during the
> normalization step of analyzing PET images?
> i have a set of images where the raw data looks good and the realigned
> images look good.  however, when i try to normalize, i get an error that
> reads "divide by zero" and the images turn out terribly distorted
> -compacted and smooshed into an oval shape.  does anybody know how to fix
> this?
> any advice would be much appreciated.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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