My understanding was that it depends if you use just the "realign" button or the "realign and unwarp" button.
I wouldn't be able to explain exactly why, but in my understanding if you choose "realign", than SPM translates and rotates the images but doesn't do anything else, so that you have to put the regressors in the first level model to model out the actual effect of the movement.
But if you use "ralign and unwarp" then SPM not only rotates and translates the slices to realign them, but also correct for the changes expected in the signal due to these movements, so you don't need to add the rp-file in the first level model.
I hope I got it right, maybe someone can confirm this.
Cheers,
Laura
-----Original Message-----
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glabus, Michael
Sent: 30 January 2007 14:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] motion correction
I'll have a stab at this.
Neuroimaging involves digital sampling and fMRI images have rather course spatial sampling resolution. Resampling during realignment involves some form of interpolation and that will introduce errors - think about partial volume effects.
The realignment procedure uses an iterative procedure to minimize the error between a template image and the target image. By definition, the minimizing of the error means that some residual misalignment error may exist. Modeling the motion parameters as regressors, while reducing a dF for each, *should* help in reducing the error term in the linear regression model. You could try with and without to see if there's any noticeable improvement.
Cheers - Mike
>-----Original Message-----
>From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping)
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Markus Burgmer
>Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:41 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [SPM] motion correction
>
>dear spmers.
>
>i searched the archives about a question about motion correction and
>covariate for the model, but did not find a sufficient answer
>(some were to
>technical for me to understand, sorry about that).
>i always understood realignement in spm in the way, that
>afterwards (after
>reslicing the images) spm corrected for the motion between the
>images. for
>me it sounds like after that, almost no differences in motion
>between the
>images exists, the images almost "look" like one static image over the
>whole time series. (maybe here i am wrong, please correct me).
>now i read in many mails, that it is recommended to integrate the
>translation and rotation data of the rp-file as a covariate
>into the model
>to control for movement effects.
>
>now my question:
>if both of my above assumptions are correct, why should i
>integrate the
>motion covariate? didn't i control for movement artefacts by the
>realignement procedure itself? i thought that the rp-file gives me
>information about the rotation and translation which results
>in the new
>images after realignement. integrating those also in the model
>would be one
>step to much?
>
>if i still have to integrate the regressor, did i understand
>it right to do
>it in the first-level procedure?
>
>thanks in advance
>
>markus burgmer
>university münster, germany
>
**********************************************************************
This email is confidential and is intended solely for the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If this is not you, please forward the message to [log in to unmask] We have scanned this email before sending it, but cannot guarantee that malicious software is absent and we shall carry no liability in this regard.
We advise that information intended to be kept confidential should not be sent by email. We also advise that health concerns should be discussed with a medical professional in person or by telephone. NHS Direct can also provide advice. We shall not be liable for any failure to follow this advice. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH).
|