Print

Print


Hi John, the EPI is definitely distorted after using the flow fields to warp to MNI space, with expansion on the dorsal side as well as near the cerebellum, but perhaps you are referring to something else?
My EPIs were all partial coverage, which I assume was the cause of the distortion after the warping via flow fields. I re-orient all EPI and the T1 images to AC and then coregister the structural to the functional, within subject before running DARTEL. Check Reg looked pretty good to me after this procedure.

Are you suggesting that normalisation via segmentation should be used in place of DARTEL for these data?

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I could be wrong, but those spatially normalised EPI data appear to be a
bit distorted.  I would strongly suggest that you check the alignment
between your original functional and structural MRI.  Even if the
inter-subject alignment of the structural scans was perfect, this
alignment would not help the fMRI analysis unless you had good
within-subject alignment between the functional and structural data.
The Check Reg button would show if this has been achieved.  Sometimes,
particularly on older scanners or with higher field strengths, a
rigid-body coregistration can not achieve accurate alignment.

I don't know if anyone has tried it, but if distortion is high relative
to the amount of dropout in the EPI data, then it could be worth trying
to normalise via a segmentation of the EPI.  This would probably work
for some people's data, but not others (ie it requires empirical
testing).

Best regards,
-John

On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:37 -0400, Audrey Duarte wrote:
> Hi Christian, I wanted to weigh in with my own results and ask about
> your mask. I followed this procedure you suggest, with a few changes.
> I created binary FOV masks myself for each subject, since I typically
> do first level stats after normalisation. I applied these masks to the
> EPIs after the flow fields had been applied (with smoothing for EPIs
> without for mask). This masking did take care of eliminating voxels
> outside the FOV as does your procedure. However, after applying the
> flow fields (DARTEL deform to MNI) to the mask without smoothing,
> little holes appear in the image which subsequently appear in the EPIs
> after applying the mask. Did you see the same in your mask after
> deforming it to MNI space?
>
> The images from L to R are the EPI deformed to MNI with smoothing, the
> FOV mask for the same subject, the deformed mask without smoothing,
> single subject canonical brain.
> Thanks, Audrey
>
> 2009/9/1 Christian Büchel <[log in to unmask]>
>         Dear Jonathan and Marko,
>
>         The problem seems to stem from the combined warping and
>         smoothing that is
>         performed. It always occurs when your EPIs are truncated.
>         Doing some control
>         analyses revealed that inside the original EPI everything is
>         correct. It's
>         just that the deformation field enlarge the voxels outside the
>         FOV.
>         We have designed a pipeline that takes care of these problems
>         (and at the
>         same time saves a lot of disk space as only the con images are
>         normalized
>         and smoothed...).
>
>         1. Coregister T1 onto first functional image
>
>         2. Realign and reslice fMRI, then do first level stats
>         (unsmoothed images!)
>
>         3. Use all T1 images --> new segment --> Dartel
>
>         4. Take individual con images from first level analyses and
>         apply
>         deformations (and smooth) them into MNI space (using
>          "normalise to MNI").
>         These images will again look funny.
>
>         5. Take the individual mask.img (that was created by the 1st
>         level stats)
>         and also deform this into MNI (using Dartel) BUT without
>         smoothing.
>
>         6. Take all spatially normalised individual mask.img and do a
>         logical AND
>         (using IMCALC) with all of them and use the ensuing image as a
>         mask for the
>         final 2nd level stats.
>
>
>         I hope this works for you
>
>         -Christian
>
>         --
>         Prof. Dr. Christian Büchel
>         Institut für Systemische Neurowissenschaften
>         Haus W34, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
>         Martinistr. 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany
>         Tel.: +49-40-7410-54726
>         Fax.: +49-40-7410-59955
>         [log in to unmask]
>         http://www.uke.uni-hamburg.de/institute/systemische-neurowissenschaften/
>
>         > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>         > Von: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping)
>         > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Jonathan Peelle
>         > Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. September 2009 14:57
>         > An: [log in to unmask]
>         > Betreff: [SPM] SPM8: DARTEL normalise to MNI problem with
>         > partial coverage EPIs
>
>         >
>         > I've come across a curious normalization issue using the
>         > "normalise to MNI" option in SPM8 (with recent updates) on
>         > partial-coverage EPI scans.  Segmentation, coregistration,
>         > and template creation seem to work ok (see
>         struct_c1_exampfun.png).
>         >
>         > Applying the flow field to the segmented structural image
>         > seems to be fine.  However, when I apply the flow field to
>         > the functional data, I get the strange warping attached (see
>         > avg152_mwc1_swf.png).  This came up at least once previously
>         > on the list, but I didn't see any replies:
>         >
>         >
>         https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0908&L=SPM&P=R
>         > 399&X=485D484296C56BEE64
>         >
>         > Have others run into this issue?  Any idea what this might
>         be
>         > due to, and (even better) possible suggestions for ways to
>         > fix?  Thanks!
>         >
>         > Jonathan
>         >
>         > --
>         > Jonathan Peelle, PhD
>         > MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
>         > 15 Chaucer Road
>         > Cambridge CB2 7EF
>         > UK
>         >
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Pflichtangaben gemäß Gesetz über elektronische Handelsregister
>         und Genossenschaftsregister sowie das Unternehmensregister
>         (EHUG):
>
>         Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
>         Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts
>         Gerichtsstand: Hamburg
>
>         Vorstandsmitglieder:
>         Prof. Dr. Jörg F. Debatin (Vorsitzender)
>         Dr. Alexander Kirstein
>         Ricarda Klein
>         Prof. Dr. Dr. Uwe Koch-Gromus
>
>
>
> --
> Audrey Duarte, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> School of Psychology
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> 654 Cherry Street
> Atlanta, GA 30332
> voice 404-894-2349
> http://psychology.gatech.edu/duartelab/
--
John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]>




--
Audrey Duarte, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Psychology
Georgia Institute of Technology
654 Cherry Street
Atlanta, GA 30332
voice 404-894-2349
http://psychology.gatech.edu/duartelab/