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  May 2009

SPM May 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: R: [SPM] Longitudinal DARTEL spm8

From:

Neil Chatterjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Neil Chatterjee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 May 2009 14:05:02 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (280 lines)

Perhaps one could then make the argument that areas with tissue
differences are likely to be more poorly registered.  If that is the
case, then as the registration improves, one would expect to see
significance decreases even in areas with true tissue differences.

-Neil

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:46 -0500, MCLAREN, Donald wrote:
> Given that DARTEL should provide better between subject registration;
> the results are more likely to reflect true differences in the tissue,
> rather than tissue differences and/or registration differences.
> 
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Dana Perantie <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>         I'm not John but have an opinion on this.  If you modulate for
>         every warp, results will be in units of volume.  I find
>         "volume"/mm3/cm3 easier to interpret and easier to explain to
>         non-imaging journal reviewers.  If I can say "Group X had an
>         average gray matter volume change of +8 cm3 in this region
>         over two years while Group Y had an average volume change of
>         -3 cm3" that is quite tangible.
>         
>         On a related note, I did some cross-sectional analyses with
>         DARTEL and compared them with published results we got from
>         the same data set with SPM5.  I found that regions were
>         smaller and less significant with DARTEL.  Blobs did appear in
>         the same locations and with nearly identical peak voxels as
>         with SPM5, which was reassuring... but some were sub-threshold
>         when previously they were reportable (and reported!).  Smaller
>         cortical significant blobs with DARTEL do make sense to me,
>         since the individual brains appear squashed into more similar
>         space.  I was hoping there would be compensation by higher T
>         or smoothness would be "rougher" in those regions, making the
>         smoothness-corrected cluster-level significance the same as it
>         was with SPM5... but it wasn't.  Clusters were simply less
>         significant with DARTEL.  This makes me worry about Type 2
>         error with DARTEL (or Type 1 with SPM5?), but it makes me feel
>         pretty good about my positive results recently obtained from
>         longitudinal DARTEL.  In addition, statistical differences in
>         my longitudinal DARTEL analyses were strictly in the direction
>         of our hypotheses :) often with thousands of voxels and a
>         handful of significant clusters in the hypothesized direction,
>         and not a single supra-threshold voxel in the contrast in the
>         other direction.
>         
>         -Dana
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping)
>         [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neil Chatterjee
>         Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:27 AM
>         To: [log in to unmask]
>         Subject: Re: [SPM] R: [SPM] Longitudinal DARTEL spm8
>         
>         Hi John,
>         
>         (hopefully) quick question about the method described below:
>         why
>         modulate again in step f?  It seems like deformations from the
>         intra-subject warping is the interesting part and
>         inter-subject warping
>         is just to put things in a common space for logistical ease of
>         doing
>         stats.  So why input inter-subject warping info into the
>         images by
>         modulating again?
>         
>         Regards,
>         Neil
>         
>         Neil Chatterjee
>         Stanford Systems Neuroscience and Pain Lab
>         [log in to unmask]
>         
>         John Ashburner wrote:
>         > The suggestion I made was about how to use DARTEL to do the
>         intra-subject
>         > alignment, so I was basically just answering the question.
>          I have no
>         > empirical evidence either way, but (for the reasons I
>         mentioned) I suspect
>         > that HDW may do a marginally better job with most serial
>         scans.
>         >
>         > Best regards,
>         > -John
>         >
>         > On Friday 22 May 2009 11:15, Benetti, Stefania wrote:
>         >
>         >> Thank you John for your answers and suggestions. However, I
>         am not sure to
>         >> understand what you are suggesting about HDW approach that
>         Kipps used.
>         >>
>         >> "In general, I think I would still suggest the HDW approach
>         that Kipps and
>         >> others have used...For inter-subject alignment, the
>         residuals are rarely
>         >> i.i.d. Gaussian, which is why I chose to align tissue class
>         data
>         >> instead.... However, the segmentation errors may be
>         relatively large
>         >> compared with the volumetric differences between the serial
>         scans, which
>         >> would make the DARTEL approach less accurate"
>         >>
>         >> My understanding was that the procedure you suggested to
>         Reinders
>         >>
>         (https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0804&L=SPM&P=R48484)
>         >> consisted in an adaptation of Kipps' approach for DARTEL,
>         in which the
>         >> within subject alignment approach replaced the HDW. Am I
>         completely wrong?
>         >> Did you mean that this longitudinal DARTEL procedure may be
>         less accurate
>         >> than the procedure that Kipps actually used?
>         >>
>         >> Many thanks again
>         >> Stefania
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> -----------------------------
>         >>
>         >> Stefania Benetti
>         >> King's College - Institute of Psychiatry
>         >> Neuroimaging Section
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> -----Messaggio originale-----
>         >> Da: John Ashburner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>         >> Inviato: gio 21/05/2009 13.50
>         >> A: Benetti, Stefania; [log in to unmask]
>         >> Oggetto: Re: [SPM] Longitudinal DARTEL spm8
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>> We pre-processed a small longitudinal dataset (26
>         subjects,T1=baseline
>         >>> T2=follow-up) using DARTEL and the procedure suggested in:
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0804&L=SPM&P=R48484
>         >>>
>         >>> Briefly,
>         >>> a) both T1 and T2 manually reoriented. T2 co-registered to
>         T1,no
>         >>> re-slicing. b) segmentation of  both T1 and T2 images
>         (section 1.1 DARTEL
>         >>> manual). c) create within-subject template (smoothing
>         parameter to NONE)
>         >>> d) generate modulated warped GM an WM using the
>         within-subject flow
>         >>> e) create an inter-subject template
>         >>> f) generated modulated warped(mwmwc1T1 and mwmwc1T2) GM
>         and WM using the
>         >>> inter-subject flow fields. g) smoothing and statistical
>         analysis using
>         >>> both a flexible factorial design.
>         >>>
>         >>> However  when we pre-processed the same database using
>         optimised VBM for
>         >>> serial scans and then the same statistical analyses, we
>         obtained a
>         >>> completely different result. GM changes were found in
>         regions where no
>         >>> significant effects were detected with the DARTEL
>         approach.
>         >>>
>         >>> Would you expect to find such a difference?
>         >>>
>         >> I would expect different models to give different results,
>         so I'm not
>         >> really surprised.  I would suggest checking out the
>         contrast images
>         >> generated from the GLM to see if the general trends are
>         similar.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>> Could this difference in terms
>         >>> of localisation be attributable to differences in
>         normalisation?
>         >>>
>         >> Very likely, and also differences in tissue classification.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>> Is it
>         >>> sensible to rely on the DARTEL approach rather than the
>         optimised one?
>         >>>
>         >> I haven't tested the various approaches to know what works
>         "best", and the
>         >> most sucessful approach is likely to be dependent on things
>         like the
>         >> contrast in the images, the image artifacts and the
>         stability of the
>         >> scanner. However, I would expect that some form of within
>         subject alignment
>         >> approach may provide more sensitivity to differences.  For
>         longitudinal
>         >> analyses, you are identifying tiny volumetric differences
>         of the order of a
>         >> percentage or so, so the details really do matter.
>         >>
>         >> In general, I think I would still suggest the HDW approach
>         that Kipps and
>         >> others have used.  There are issues with HDW, which relate
>         to the algorithm
>         >> fully converging and it is also asymmetric (so registering
>         early with late
>         >> will give different results from doing it the other way
>         around), but it is
>         >> probably the more accurate of the SPM procedures to use for
>         longitudinal
>         >> studies. A histogram of the difference between the
>         registered images should
>         >> approximately indicate that the residuals are i.i.d.
>         Gaussian, which would
>         >> make the mean-squares difference (used by HDW) a suitable
>         objective
>         >> function to use.  For inter-subject alignment, the
>         residuals are rarely
>         >> i.i.d. Gaussian, which is why I chose to align tissue class
>         data instead.
>         >> However, the segmentation errors may be relatively large
>         compared with the
>         >> volumetric differences between the serial scans, which
>         would make the
>         >> DARTEL approach less accurate.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>> One more question about step d) in the procedure mentioned
>         above. Is this
>         >>> step necessary? I am probably missing something, but I was
>         wondering if
>         >>> warping the T1 and T2 images using the within-subject flow
>         fields, and
>         >>> then warping the obtained images again with the
>         inter-subject flow fields
>         >>>  (step f) may reduce local differences we are actually
>         interested in
>         >>> since we are dealing with serial scans.
>         >>>
>         >> The transforms could be composed and then used, but I'm not
>         sure how much
>         >> difference it would make in practice.
>         >>
>         >> Best regards,
>         >> -John
>         >>
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
> =====================
> D.G. McLaren
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
> Neuroscience Training Program
> Office: (608) 265-9672
> Lab: (608) 256-1901 ext 12914
> =====================
> This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain
> PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
> and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient
> or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use,
> disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the
> contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please
> immediately notify the sender via telephone at (608) 265-9672 or
> email.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager