Interpolation Artifacts in Multimodality Image Registration
IEEE Transaction on Medical Imaging, 2003
Jeffrey Tsao (editor)
Keumsil Lee Feb. 9, 2004
Introduction
1. Multimodality image registration? - Images are acquired in different poses- Complementary information: anatomy and physiology
2. Wood’s method VS MI- Voxel intensities at corresponding positions conform to a many-to-one
mapping- No intensity mapping relationship between the images
3. Prefers match metric with fewer assumptions4. Four steps of image registration
- Tentative pose relative to one another- Joint histogram of voxel intensities- Determine match metric- Iterative optimizing of match metric
Mutual Information
v applied to measure the statistic dependence between voxels intensities of the images
v assumed to be maximal if the images are geometrically aligned
Goal of Study
1. Patterns of interpolation artifacts2. Strategies of overcome these artifacts.3. Effects of eight interpolation schemes
- Nearest neighbor (NN)- Linear- Cubic Catmull-Rom- Hamming-windowed sinc- Partial volume- NN with jittered sampling (JIT)- NN with histogram blurring (BLUR)- NN with JIT and BLUR
4. Impacts of using different numbers of intensity bins5. Artifact-reducing effects of image rotation and sampling
Methods
1. Human brain images
2. 4 pairs of images
3. Image degradation
128X128 MRI 128X128 SPECT
Ł
Methods - continue
4. Registration curves- Translational misregistration : 10 vixels
- Rotational misregistration: 180
5. Translation & Rotation applied to SPECT image- Less signal energy
- High spatial frequencies
- Less susceptible to degradation in image quality from interpolation
6. MI was the maximum when the images were registered
Evaluation interpolation artifacts: MI
1. Steps - Images were overlaid
- Joint histogram
- Quantized voxel intensity with fixed number of discrete bins
- Different numbers of intensity bins
2. Determination of MI:
Evaluation interpolation artifacts: Smoothness of Registration Curve
1. Steps- Normalize the Y axis of each registration curve
- Subtract the curve from a smoothed version
- The difference of them represents the interpolation artifacts
2. Filters- Median filtering & Convolution with a Hamming filter
- 1.5 voxels in translation & 5 in rotation along the X axis
3. Fewer interpolation artifacts à smoother à higher smoothness value
Translational Misregistration: 10 Voxels
Rotational Misregistration: 180
Smoothness
Ł # of bins
Discussion
v Number of Intensity Bins
v Classification of Interpolator (Intensity interpolator VS non-)
v Intensity interpolator
v Match metric and Generalization
Summary
v Interpolation artifacts severely affect registration
v Artifacts can be reduced at misaligned voxel gridsà NN interpolation & BLUR can be considered to save time
v Well aligned voxel grids need special attention
v Suggesting strategies1) Avoid extremely large or small number of intensity bins2) Resampling: rotated orientation & unequal voxel sizes3) JIT4) BLUR
By initial transformation estimate
v
v
Example
��������������� � ������ � �������������������
� ��� ��� �����
����� ���������� ����
��������������� ��������
������� ��� ���������
� ����� ������������
���� ��� ��������
Overview of SPM Analysis
Methods
1. Human head images- 128 x 128 axial MR (Magnetic Resonance) image
- 128 x 128 SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) image
2. 4 pairs of images1. aligned : preregistered using Wood’s Method
2. rotated : SPECT image was 30 counter-clockwise rotated
3. 128/129 : SPECT image was rescaled 129x129
4. /3 : SPECT image was rescaled by increasing the voxel size by /3
3. Image degradation
Top Related