↓ Skip to main content

Inter-subject Registration of Functional Images: Do We Need Anatomical Images?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Inter-subject Registration of Functional Images: Do We Need Anatomical Images?
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elvis Dohmatob, Gael Varoquaux, Bertrand Thirion

Abstract

In Echo-Planar Imaging (EPI)-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), inter-subject registration typically uses the subject's T1-weighted (T1w) anatomical image to learn deformations of the subject's brain onto a template. The estimated deformation fields are then applied to the subject's EPI scans (functional or diffusion-weighted images) to warp the latter to a template space. Historically, such indirect T1w-based registration was motivated by the lack of clear anatomical details in low-resolution EPI images: a direct registration of the EPI scans to template space would be futile. A central prerequisite in such indirect methods is that the anatomical (aka the T1w) image of each subject is well aligned with their EPI images via rigid coregistration. We provide experimental evidence that things have changed: nowadays, there is a decent amount of anatomical contrast in high-resolution EPI data. That notwithstanding, EPI distortions due to B0 inhomogeneities cannot be fully corrected. Residual uncorrected distortions induce non-rigid deformations between the EPI scans and the same subject's anatomical scan. In this manuscript, we contribute a computationally cheap pipeline that leverages the high spatial resolution of modern EPI scans for direct inter-subject matching. Our pipeline is direct and does not rely on the T1w scan to estimate the inter-subject deformation. Results on a large dataset show that this new pipeline outperforms the classical indirect T1w-based registration scheme, across a variety of post-registration quality-assessment metrics including: Normalized Mutual Information, relative variance (variance-to-mean ratio), and to a lesser extent, improved peaks of group-level General Linear Model (GLM) activation maps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 33%
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 30%
Engineering 7 16%
Computer Science 5 12%
Psychology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,930,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,039
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,961
of 455,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#32
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 455,332 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.