 |
 |
Normalising via the MRI should be better, although this may depend on your images. I'd suggest estimating the spatial transformations via segmentation. One of the reasons for this is that the PET template was constructed from blood flow images, which may be slightly different from FDG. There's also a bit more useful information in MRI that should allow more accurate alignment to be achieved. Generally, the higher the degree of interpolation, the better the results should be. Usually, the reasons for using lower degree interpolation just involve computational time. Best regards, -John On 6 December 2012 14:33, Pieter Vandemaele <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear SPM'ers, > > We are starters in using PET and MRI images. In our study we would like to > coregister FDG PET and MRI and normalise them to MNI. > I've searched the archives and the web, but I do not find recent comments > on wich method is the best: > normalizing MRI to MRI template and PET to PET template or normalizing MRI > to MRI template and normalize coregistered pet with MRI normalization > transformation matrix. > Does anyone of you have experience with this? Are there other approaches? > What are good parameters in terms of interpolation? > All help will be greatly appreciated > > Pieter > -- > > > *Pieter Vandemaele, *MSc-Ing > *GIfMI Site Manager* > Ghent Institute for Functional and Metabolic Imaging > MR Department -1K12 > Ghent University Hospital > De Pintelaan 185 > 9000 Ghent - BELGIUM > > [log in to unmask] tel: +32 (0)9 332 48 20 > http://gifmi.ugent.be fax: +32 (0)9 332 49 69 > > > >