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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  April 2011

SPM April 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DARTEL in stroke patients

From:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:33:39 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

Dear Natalia,

> I知 processing data (anatomie and functional) of a longitudinal study on stroke patients and I have some questions concerning the DARTEL registration. I already send these questions twice to the mailing list and nobody reply to them, so I知 not sure if this is so because nobody can really answer them or because I知 asking very basic things.

I suspect you haven't received a reply because you are performing an uncommon analysis, so it's not necessarily clear what the right approach would be. I'll have a go but don't have a lot of experience with longitudinal data myself, so hopefully others will jump in.

Just to start, it would be helpful to know exactly what you are looking at. Is the aim to, eventually, conduct a group study? Or is the focus on results in single subjects?

If you are going to be comparing a subject with another (whether another subject or a control), at some point you will need to normalize them together into a common space葉hat is, create a DARTEL template that contains all of the subjects you want to compare (or perhaps a representative subsample). If you are just looking within a single subject over time, you may not need to do this葉his seems to be the approach you are going for, but it is worth clarifying.

Also, I wonder how far apart your sessions are, and whether you expect any substantial structural changes in subjects' brains over this time (e.g., post-stroke?). If you do not expect changes in each subject's brain, it seems to me that using DARTEL to compare sessions is probably not necessary遥ou could probably just coregister these together.

If you are doing a group analysis, and there was no expected change in brain shape, you could also perhaps use a single session's data (or a mean across sessions?) to enter in a group template, which may save some time and effort. If there is a chance that the subject's brain changed significantly, then I suspect that your approach of using DARTEL to obtain an average shape for that subject is probably a good one. But I would be interested to hear others comment on multi-stage DARTEL image registration.


> I try to use DARTEL to register the anatomical and functional data of the 3 sessions together. This is what I did :
> - Skull stripping of session 1, 2 and 3 separatelly : as describe in the SPM manual page 318 Chapter 33 Фsing DARTEL

Some people have reported improved segmentation results with skull stripping, but (especially with the new segment) it may not be necessary. This would save you a step if you omit it, and also keep everything related to tissue class separation within the same model, which is somewhat more elegant.



> - Segmentation of the skull stripped T1 image of session 1, 2 and 3 separatelly : with New Segment
> - Estimate warps (u_c1*.nii for each session) and Template of the 3 sessions (=Template6.nii): with Run DARTEL. I chose for Smoothing parameter None. I saw in previous studies that sometimes people do a mean image of all sessions. Is it correct to use instead the Template6.nii ?

If you are using DARTEL, you should warp to the Template_6. But see above for whether you may be able to omit the subject-level DARTEL. (It's not clear to me what previous studies have used the mean images for.)



> - Normalisation : with Normalise to MNI space tool. Is correct to use this tool even if I have a DARTEL template for each subject and not for a bigger group?.

If you want to get the results to MNI space, then this is the correct tool to use. But, if you are comparing subjects with each other (a common use of putting things in MNI space), you'll want to do this using a group template composed of all your subjects (or a balanced group).



> In this step I was also not sure how to enter the flow fields. I chose to Ёew Subjects and enter each session as a subject. So that I apply the flow field of the first session to the funtional scans of the first session, the flow field of the second session to the functional scans of the second session and so on. I run ォ Normalise to MNI space サ tool ones for the functional scans with ォ preserve concentration サ and FWHM=8 ; and ones for the anatomical data (bias corrected image) with ォ preserve Amoun サt and FWHM=1.

This stage also depends on what you want to do in the end擁.e., if you adopt a different approach (as I've suggested above), you will only have one set of flow fields per subject, which you could then apply to all of these images.

If you are planning on doing any VBM, I would also suggest > 1 mm smoothing on the structural images, but that depends on what in particular you are doing with the data.



> - I知 not sure how to warp the sessions with each other in the DARTEL space. Can I just apply the warps that I got from Run DARTEL to the functional images? That means, can I warp the functional images of the first session with the flow field of the first session and the functional images of the second session with the flow field of the second session, and so on.

This relates to whether you need to register each subject's sessions together with DARTEL, and then to group/MNI space, or whether you can just do a single registration from subject to group/MNI space. If you do the 2-stage approach, I would think you would want to use subject-specific flow fields for each session (as you've described), and then the (average subject) -> group/MNI flow fields on this data. Although I believe you can combine these two sets of flow fields in a single step (I'm away from SPM at the moment so can't check).


> - Do I have to mask the lesion out to do the DARTEL normalization and If yes where (in which processing step) do I have to introduce the mask?

If you are normalizing just a single subject's data, I don't think masking would be necessary (although perhaps during segmentation). If you are working with group results, I'm not sure how well DARTEL will work with lesioned brains擁f subjects have different shape brains, it may be difficult to compare. (That is, I assume that DARTEL will produce a solution, but it may be difficult to interpret.)


Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Jonathan


--
Dr. Jonathan Peelle
Department of Neurology
University of Pennsylvania
3 West Gates
3400 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
USA
http://jonathanpeelle.net/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
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