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 2011

SPM May 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: spm_affreg

From:

John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 10 May 2011 15:57:39 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (519 lines)

You only need the one shear, so that you have 6 parameters in total.
You can test this by looking for affine transforms that can not be
represented by those six parameters:

 for i=1:10000
  M0=[randn(2,3)*10; 0 0 1];
  P1=spm_imatrix2D(M0);
  M1=spm_matrix2D(P1);
  t=sum(sum((M1-M0).^2));
  if t>1e-9, disp('Problem'); break; end
 end

Best regards,
-John

On 6 May 2011 21:48, Siddharth Srivastava <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi John, please ignore the first part of my previous mail: made some errors
> in
> cut and paste. It runs fine now. The question about the shears, however,
> still lingers: do I have
> to somehow use both Sx and Sy, or as your implementation suggests, only one
> would suffice?
>
> thanks again, and sorry for being such a bother...
> sid.
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Siddharth Srivastava <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John, for the answers. The code, however exits with "Problem". M0
>> and M1 differ.
>> Also, why is there just one shear component in the matrix? I have seen
>> general shears modeled as [1,h;g,1]: is this superfluous, and just one "h"
>> will be sufficient for 2d case?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sid.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 11:01 AM, John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your model uses 7 parameters, but there are only 6 elements in
>>> A(1:2,1:3).  Also, you need to be able to deal with a broader range of
>>> angles, so atan2(s,c) is used to compute the angle.  I've tested it
>>> with the following code, so hopefully it works for all cases.
>>>
>>> for i=1:10000
>>>  P=randn(1,6)*10;
>>>  M0=spm_matrix2D(P);
>>>  P1=spm_imatrix2D(M0);
>>>  M1=spm_matrix2D(P1);
>>>  t=sum(sum((M1-M0).^2));
>>>  if t>1e-9, disp('Problem'); break; end
>>> end
>>>
>>> Note that spm_imatrix2D(spm_matrix2D(P)) does not necessarily have to
>>> equal P, but the matrices generated from the two parameter sets should
>>> be the same.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> -John
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2011 17:11, Siddharth Srivastava <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >       Can someone help me check the 2D versions of the spm_matrix and
>>> > spm_imatrix? My
>>> > implementation currently is as follows:
>>> >
>>> > ---2D spm_matrix ---
>>> > function [A] = spm_matrix2D(P)
>>> > % P = [Tx, Ty, R, Zx, Zy, Sx,Sy]
>>> > p0 = [0,0,0,1,1,0,0];
>>> > P = [P, p0((length(P)+1):7)]
>>> >
>>> > A = eye(3);
>>> > % T -> R -> Zoom -> Shear
>>> >  A =     A * [1,0,P(1); ...
>>> >           0,1,P(2); ...
>>> >         0,0,   1];
>>> >  A =     A * [cos(P(3)), sin(P(3)), 0; ...
>>> >           -sin(P(3)),  cos(P(3)), 0; ...
>>> >       0,          0,         1];
>>> >  A =     A * [P(4), 0, 0; ...
>>> >               0,   P(5), 0; ...
>>> >           0, 0, 1];
>>> >  A =     A * [1, P(6), 0; ...
>>> >               P(7)  , 1, 0; ...
>>> >           0, 0, 1];
>>> > --------------------------------------------------
>>> > -----2D spm_imatrix ------------------------
>>> > function P =  spm_imatrix2D(M);
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > R = M(1:2,1:2);
>>> > C = chol(R' * R);
>>> > P = [M(1:2,3)',0,diag(C)',0,0];
>>> > if(det(R) < 0) P(4) = -P(4); end
>>> > C = diag(diag(C))\C;
>>> > P(6:7) = C([2,3]);
>>> >
>>> > R0 = spm_matrix2D([0,0,0,P(4:end)]);
>>> > R0 = R0(1:2,1:2);
>>> > R1 = R/R0;
>>> >
>>> > th = asin(rang(R1(1,2)));
>>> > P(3) = th;
>>> >
>>> > % There may be slight rounding errors making b>1 or b<-1.
>>> > function  a = rang(b)
>>> > a = min(max(b, -1), 1);
>>> > return;
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > I know there is something not correct, since when, for a parameter set
>>> > 'p',
>>> > i do spm_imatrix2D(spm_matrix2D(p)), I do not recover P for all
>>> > entries,
>>> > specially
>>> > rotation and shears. C(2) above always evaluates to zero. The result is
>>> > that
>>> > these errors
>>> > accumulate (or are not accounted for) on repeated application of this
>>> > sequence of
>>> > operations in the registration routine.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks in anticipation,
>>> > Sid.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Siddharth Srivastava
>>> > <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi John,
>>> >>       Thanks a lot for your answer, and it has been very helpful for
>>> >> my
>>> >> understanding
>>> >> of the details of the implementation, and my own development efforts.
>>> >> I
>>> >> have
>>> >> 2 very quick questions, though:
>>> >>
>>> >> 1) the parameter set x(:) that is returned from spm_mireg, and the
>>> >> "params" that
>>> >> spm_affsub3 returns (in spm99, which is also the version that I am
>>> >> looking
>>> >> at) ,
>>> >> are they equivalent? In other words, If I am collating the parameters
>>> >> from
>>> >> the mireg
>>> >> routine, would the distribution x(7:12) be used to estimate the
>>> >> icovar0
>>> >> entries in affsub3?
>>> >>
>>> >> 2) also would VG.mat\spm_matrix(x)*VF.mat transform G to F similar to
>>> >>      VG.mat\spm_matrix(params)*VF.mat , or do I have to do
>>> >>       M = VG.mat\spm_matrix(x(:)')*VF.mat
>>> >>       pp = spm_imatrix(M)
>>> >>       and use pp(7:12) ?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks again.
>>> >> Sid.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM, John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > I had a look at the code in spm_maff, and
>>> >>> > it looks like it also uses the values of isig and mu in the call to
>>> >>> > affreg(). My guess is
>>> >>> > that during the initial registration on a large data set for
>>> >>> > estimating
>>> >>> > the
>>> >>> > prior
>>> >>> > distribution of parameters, this will be called with typ = 'none' .
>>> >>> > Is
>>> >>> > this
>>> >>> > correct?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Once the registration has locked in on a solution, the priors have
>>> >>> less influence.  Their main influence is in the early stages of the
>>> >>> registration, or when there are relatively few slices in the data.  I
>>> >>> don't actually remember if the registration was regularised when I
>>> >>> computed their values.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Further, do we have to do a non-rigid registration for the
>>> >>> > estimation
>>> >>> > (since, in the comments the selected
>>> >>> > files are filtered as *seg_inv_sn.mat"? Since only p.Affine is
>>> >>> > being
>>> >>> > used,
>>> >>> > can this work with only
>>> >>> > an affine / rigid transformation?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Only the affine transform in the files is used, so basically yes.
>>> >>>  You
>>> >>> could just do affine registration.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I would also be happy if you could also answer my other question
>>> >>> > about
>>> >>> > examining the
>>> >>> > effects of the values in isig and mu (what are the units of mu?) on
>>> >>> > the
>>> >>> > transformed image.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> They are unit-less, and are just a measure of the zooms and shears.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > For example,
>>> >>> > if i set a mu of [mu1, mu2, ...] and a isig of [sig1, 0, 0...; 0,
>>> >>> > sig2,
>>> >>> > 0,
>>> >>> > 0..; ...] (with only diagonal components),
>>> >>> > based on the Hencky tensor penalty, it seems that large deviations
>>> >>> > of
>>> >>> > parameter 1  estimate (T - mu) from
>>> >>> > mu1 will be penalized. How is the value of isig1 modifying the
>>> >>> > penalty?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Its assuming that the elements of the matrix log of the part that
>>> >>> does
>>> >>> shears and zooms has a multivariate normal distribution, so the
>>> >>> penalty is a kind of negative log likelhood.  The isig is essentially
>>> >>> a precision matrix, which is the inverse of a covariance matrix.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> p(x|mu,S) = 1/sqrt(det(2*pi*S)) * exp(-0.5*(x-mu)'*inv(S)*(x-mu))
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Taking logs and negating, you get 0.5*(x-mu)'*inv(S)*(x-mu) + const
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > How
>>> >>> > do the off diagonal terms affect
>>> >>> > the penalty?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The inverse of isig would just encode the covariance between the
>>> >>> various shears and zooms.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Could you also point me to a reference where I can learn more about
>>> >>> > Hencky
>>> >>> > strain tensor (specifically
>>> >>> > what information it carries in the context of image processing
>>> >>> > etc.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I don't know if this is of any use:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards,
>>> >>> -John
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM, John Ashburner
>>> >>> > <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> They were computed by affine registering loads of (227) images to
>>> >>> >> MNI
>>> >>> >> space.  This gave the affine transforms, which were then used to
>>> >>> >> build
>>> >>> >> up a mean and inverse covariance matrix.  In the comments of
>>> >>> >> spm_maff.m, you should see the following...
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> %% Values can be derived by...
>>> >>> >> %sn = spm_select(Inf,'.*seg_inv_sn.mat$');
>>> >>> >> %X  = zeros(size(sn,1),12);
>>> >>> >> %for i=1:size(sn,1),
>>> >>> >> %    p  = load(deblank(sn(i,:)));
>>> >>> >> %    M  = p.VF(1).mat*p.Affine/p.VG(1).mat;
>>> >>> >> %    J  = M(1:3,1:3);
>>> >>> >> %    V  = sqrtm(J*J');
>>> >>> >> %    R  = V\J;
>>> >>> >> %    lV      =  logm(V);
>>> >>> >> %    lR      = -logm(R);
>>> >>> >> %    P       = zeros(12,1);
>>> >>> >> %    P(1:3)  = M(1:3,4);
>>> >>> >> %    P(4:6)  = lR([2 3 6]);
>>> >>> >> %    P(7:12) = lV([1 2 3 5 6 9]);
>>> >>> >> %    X(i,:)  = P';
>>> >>> >> %end;
>>> >>> >> %mu   = mean(X(:,7:12));
>>> >>> >> %XR   = X(:,7:12) - repmat(mu,[size(X,1),1]);
>>> >>> >> %isig = inv(XR'*XR/(size(X,1)-1))
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> You may be able to re-code this to work with your 2D transforms.
>>> >>> >>  Note
>>> >>> >> that I only use the components that describe shears and zooms.
>>> >>> >>  Also,
>>> >>> >> if I was re-coding it all again, I would probably do things
>>> >>> >> slightly
>>> >>> >> differently, using the following decomposition:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> J=M(1:3,1:3);
>>> >>> >> L=real(logm(J));
>>> >>> >> S=(L+L')/2; % Symmetric part (for zooms and shears, which should
>>> >>> >> be
>>> >>> >> penalised)
>>> >>> >> A=(L-L')/2; % Anti-symmetric part (for rotations)
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> I might even base the penalty on lambda(2)*trace(S)^2 +
>>> >>> >> lambda(1)*trace(S*S'), which is often used as a measure of
>>> >>> >> "elastic
>>> >>> >> energy" for penalising non-linear registration.  Of course, there
>>> >>> >> would also be a bit of annoying extra stuff to deal with due to
>>> >>> >> MNI
>>> >>> >> space being a bit bigger than average brains are.  Figuring out
>>> >>> >> the
>>> >>> >> mean would require (I think) an iterative process similar to the
>>> >>> >> one
>>> >>> >> described in "Characterizing volume and surface deformations in an
>>> >>> >> atlas framework: theory, applications, and implementation", by
>>> >>> >> Woods
>>> >>> >> in NeuroImage (2003).
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Best regards,
>>> >>> >> -John
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On 14 April 2011 17:15, Siddharth Srivastava <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> > Hi all,
>>> >>> >> >      My question pertains specifically to the values of isig and
>>> >>> >> > mu
>>> >>> >> > that
>>> >>> >> > are
>>> >>> >> > incorporated
>>> >>> >> > in the code, and I wish to disentangle the effect that these
>>> >>> >> > numbers
>>> >>> >> > have on
>>> >>> >> > individual parameters
>>> >>> >> > during the optimization stage. I am trying to map it to a 2D
>>> >>> >> > case,
>>> >>> >> > and
>>> >>> >> > these
>>> >>> >> > numbers
>>> >>> >> > will have to be calculated ab-initio for my case. Before I begin
>>> >>> >> > with
>>> >>> >> > estimating the prior distribution
>>> >>> >> > for these parameters, I need to check the effect that they have
>>> >>> >> > on
>>> >>> >> > the
>>> >>> >> > registered images. Regarding this
>>> >>> >> > 1) Can someone suggest a way I can examine the effect on each
>>> >>> >> > parameter
>>> >>> >> > separately, if it is
>>> >>> >> >      at all possible.
>>> >>> >> > 2) Some advise on how to estimate these parameters, if it has
>>> >>> >> > been
>>> >>> >> > done
>>> >>> >> > for
>>> >>> >> > images other
>>> >>> >> >      than brain images, will be really helpful for me.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > Thanks,
>>> >>> >> > Sid.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Siddharth Srivastava
>>> >>> >> > <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> Dear John,
>>> >>> >> >>           Thanks for your answer. I was able to correctly run
>>> >>> >> >> my 2D
>>> >>> >> >> implementation
>>> >>> >> >> based on your advise. However, I am am not very confident of my
>>> >>> >> >> results
>>> >>> >> >> and wanted to
>>> >>> >> >> consult you on certain aspects of my mapping from 3D to 2D.
>>> >>> >> >>            1) In function reg(..), the comment says that the
>>> >>> >> >> derivatives
>>> >>> >> >> w.r.t rotations and
>>> >>> >> >> translations is zero. Consequently, I ran the indices from 4:7.
>>> >>> >> >> According
>>> >>> >> >> to your previous
>>> >>> >> >> reply, rotations will be lumped together with scaling and
>>> >>> >> >> affine in
>>> >>> >> >> 4
>>> >>> >> >> parameters, and
>>> >>> >> >> translations, independently, in the last two. I understand that
>>> >>> >> >> in
>>> >>> >> >> this
>>> >>> >> >> case, the indices
>>> >>> >> >> run over parameters that have been separated into individual
>>> >>> >> >> components
>>> >>> >> >> (similar to
>>> >>> >> >> the form accepted by spm_matrix). Is this correct for the
>>> >>> >> >> function
>>> >>> >> >> reg(..)?  In fact, I went back to the
>>> >>> >> >> old spm code (spm99), and found parameters pdesc and free, and
>>> >>> >> >> got
>>> >>> >> >> more
>>> >>> >> >> confused as to when I should
>>> >>> >> >> use the 6 parameter, and when to use separate parameters (as if
>>> >>> >> >> I
>>> >>> >> >> was
>>> >>> >> >> passing them to spm_matrix).
>>> >>> >> >> So, when the loop runs over p1 and perturbs p1(i) by ds, does
>>> >>> >> >> it
>>> >>> >> >> run
>>> >>> >> >> over
>>> >>> >> >> translations/rotations etc
>>> >>> >> >> or does it run over the martix elements that define these
>>> >>> >> >> transformations
>>> >>> >> >> (2x2 + 1x2)?
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>            2) In function penalty(..), I have used unique
>>> >>> >> >> elements
>>> >>> >> >> as
>>> >>> >> >> [1,3,4], and my code looks like
>>> >>> >> >> T = my_matrix(p)*M;
>>> >>> >> >> T = T(1:2,1:2);
>>> >>> >> >> T = 0.5*logm(T'*T);
>>> >>> >> >> T
>>> >>> >> >> T = T(els)' - mu;
>>> >>> >> >> h = T'*isig*T
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> Assuming an application specific isig, is this correct?
>>> >>> >> >>          3) I have not yet incorporated the prior information
>>> >>> >> >> in my
>>> >>> >> >> code,
>>> >>> >> >> But for testing purposes,
>>> >>> >> >> can you suggest some neutral values  for mu and isig that I can
>>> >>> >> >> try
>>> >>> >> >> to
>>> >>> >> >> concentrate on the
>>> >>> >> >> accuracy of the implementation minus the priors for now?
>>> >>> >> >>           4) My solution curently seems to oscillate around an
>>> >>> >> >> optimum.
>>> >>> >> >> I
>>> >>> >> >> am hoping that after
>>> >>> >> >> I have removed any errors after your replies, it will converge
>>> >>> >> >> gracefully.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>           Thanks again for all the help.
>>> >>> >> >>            Siddharth.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:05 AM, John Ashburner
>>> >>> >> >> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>> A 2D affine transform would use 6 parameters, rather than 7: a
>>> >>> >> >>> 2x2
>>> >>> >> >>> matrix to encode rotations, zooms and shears, and a 2x1 vector
>>> >>> >> >>> for
>>> >>> >> >>> translations.
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>> Best regards,
>>> >>> >> >>> -John
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>> On 18 March 2011 05:05, Siddharth Srivastava
>>> >>> >> >>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> > Dear list users,
>>> >>> >> >>> >           I am currently trying to understand the
>>> >>> >> >>> > implementation
>>> >>> >> >>> > in
>>> >>> >> >>> > spm_affreg, and
>>> >>> >> >>> > to make matters simple, I tried to work out a 2D version of
>>> >>> >> >>> > the
>>> >>> >> >>> > registration
>>> >>> >> >>> > procedure. I struck a roadblock, however...
>>> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >>> > The function make_A creates part of the design matrix. For
>>> >>> >> >>> > the
>>> >>> >> >>> > 3D
>>> >>> >> >>> > case,
>>> >>> >> >>> > the
>>> >>> >> >>> > 13 parameters
>>> >>> >> >>> > are encoded in columns of A1, which then is used to generate
>>> >>> >> >>> > AA
>>> >>> >> >>> > +
>>> >>> >> >>> > A1'
>>> >>> >> >>> > A1. AA
>>> >>> >> >>> > is 13x13, and everything
>>> >>> >> >>> > works. For the 2D case, however, there will be 7+1
>>> >>> >> >>> > parameters( 2
>>> >>> >> >>> > translations, 1 rotation, 2 zoom, 2 shears and 1 intensity
>>> >>> >> >>> > scaling).
>>> >>> >> >>> > The A1 matrix for 2D, then,  will be (in make_A)
>>> >>> >> >>> > A  = [x1.*dG1 x1.*dG2 ...
>>> >>> >> >>> >       x2.*dG1 x2.*dG2 ...
>>> >>> >> >>> >       dG1     dG2  t];
>>> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >>> > which is (number of sampled points) x 7. The AA matrix (in
>>> >>> >> >>> > function
>>> >>> >> >>> > costfun)
>>> >>> >> >>> > is 8x8
>>> >>> >> >>> > so, which is the parameter I am missing in modeling a 2D
>>> >>> >> >>> > example? I
>>> >>> >> >>> > hope I
>>> >>> >> >>> > have got the number of parameters
>>> >>> >> >>> > right for the 2D case? Is there an extra column that I have
>>> >>> >> >>> > to
>>> >>> >> >>> > add
>>> >>> >> >>> > to
>>> >>> >> >>> > A1 to
>>> >>> >> >>> > make the rest of the matrix computation
>>> >>> >> >>> > consistent?
>>> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >>> > Thanks for the help
>>> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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