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: bias correction - what level?

From:

Dana Perantie <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dana Perantie <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 May 2009 16:27:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

Dear John & VBM people,
Here is an update about bias correction, in case anyone is interested.  I was concerned about what level of bias correction was appropriate, so I tested it empirically (on a small scale) with our data.  We had scans from 3 adults on 2 scans -- scans done on the same day, but the subject just came out and went back in the scanner.  One subject had a benign subarachnoid cyst displacing about a quarter of the cerebellum.

I tested various methods of bias correction, including:
Very light 40 mm FWHM
Very light 60 mm FWHM
Very light 80 mm FWHM
Medium
Very heavy
With N3 prior to segment, then extremely heavy 150mm FWHM within SPM

To test a bias correction method, I segmented images at both timepoints with that method and subtracted the images.  The idea was that the method that produced the least differences between the images was the truest, since there was no actual difference in brain volume between the scans.  I took the absolute value of the subtracted image and summed up all the values...

You may be pleased to hear that for our data also, the default SPM "very light 60mm FWHM" was almost always the "best" by this definition of "least differences when there are known to be none".  This was even more true if a gray or white matter mask was applied to exclude edgy voxels.  Importantly, in cases where other methods (N3, or very light 80mm FWHM) were better, they were only slightly better, while in cases where "very light 60mm FWHM" was better, it was sometimes MUCH better - especially in the case of the subject with cyst.  The variance and coeff of variance between methods was always smaller for white matter than gray matter, and variance was greatest for the subject with cyst.

So, now I can sleep easily knowing that we didn't just use the default, we justified using the default.  :)  Though, it should be noted that N3 also has a bunch of parameters to be tweaked, and I only tested the defaults for N3.  Results were often similar between N3 and the SPM default; that was also reassuring.
-Dana


-----Original Message-----
From: John Ashburner [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:53 AM
To: Dana Perantie; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] bias correction - what level?


> I am using DARTEL in SPM8b to do longitudinal analyses of T1 images.  For
> the initial Segment, I am looking at the different options for bias
> correction ranging from "very light" (default) to "extremely heavy".  I
> tested all 6 levels of bias correction on one image.  I applied the bias
> correction parameters from *seg_sn.mat to an image of all ones, using
> cspm_bias_writecorrected.m.  This way the bias field that is applied can be
> visualized. I have attached the results as viewed in Check Reg, with "very
> light" entered first and all of them in order progressing up to "extremely
> heavy".  I have a few questions...
>
> 1) Is it a concern that the shape of the brain is discernable?  Might this
> mean that intensity data related to brain is being mistaken for intensity
> variation due to field inhomogeneity?

This is possible.  The model assumes that each tissue class has fairly uniform
intensities throughout, but this is not necessarily the case.  For example,
subcortical GM tends to have intensities that are closer to WM, so bias
correction may try to bring such GM to a similar intensity to that in the
cortex.  If a region is darker for some physiological reason, then the bias
correction may attempt to "correct" this.

>
> 3) In some locations the intensity is adjusted down using the "very light"
> setting and up using the "extremely heavy" setting.  The results appear to
> be qualitatively different; how can one decide which is best?  Is there a
> recommendation what level of bias correction to use for longitudinal data,
> where we are especially concerned with potential influence of field change
> over time?

With little or no regularisation, the bias correction introduces ringing
effects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon ) - particularly in
those regions of the image that are not modelled by the tissue classification
(ie far from the brain, where no tissue probability map information is
available).  Ideally, the amount of regularisation should depend on prior
knowledge about the magnitude of the inhomogeneity artifact.  Alternatively
(in principle), it could be determined using a type-II maximum likelihood
(REML) procedure - but in practice, the segmentation model would probably
need to be quite a lot more complicated for this to work well (eg proper MRF
modelling, multiple tissue class images for different kinds of GM, etc).

I tried to choose default settings that work as well as possible for typical
data.  It is possible that some adjustments may be needed in order to tune
them.  This would need to be done empirically, using cross-validation to
determine the most accurate segmentation.

Best regards,
-John

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