↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Field Map and Nonlinear Registration Methods for Correction of Susceptibility Artifacts in Diffusion MRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of Field Map and Nonlinear Registration Methods for Correction of Susceptibility Artifacts in Diffusion MRI
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2017.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sijia Wang, Daniel J. Peterson, J. C. Gatenby, Wenbin Li, Thomas J. Grabowski, Tara M. Madhyastha

Abstract

Correction of echo planar imaging (EPI)-induced distortions (called "unwarping") improves anatomical fidelity for diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional imaging investigations. Commonly used unwarping methods require the acquisition of supplementary images during the scanning session. Alternatively, distortions can be corrected by nonlinear registration to a non-EPI acquired structural image. In this study, we compared reliability using two methods of unwarping: (1) nonlinear registration to a structural image using symmetric normalization (SyN) implemented in Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs); and (2) unwarping using an acquired field map. We performed this comparison in two different test-retest data sets acquired at differing sites (N = 39 and N = 32). In both data sets, nonlinear registration provided higher test-retest reliability of the output fractional anisotropy (FA) maps than field map-based unwarping, even when accounting for the effect of interpolation on the smoothness of the images. In general, field map-based unwarping was preferable if and only if the field maps were acquired optimally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 237 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 21%
Researcher 38 16%
Student > Master 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 39 16%
Unknown 44 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 65 27%
Psychology 30 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Engineering 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 65 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,291,436
of 24,240,330 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#220
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,572
of 314,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,240,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.