Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A comparative study of transformation models for the sequential mosaicing of long retinal sequences of slit-lamp images obtained in a closed-loop motion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Navigated panretinal photocoagulation is a standard care for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Slit-lamp-based systems used for this treatment provide a narrow view of the retina. Retinal mosaics are used for view expansion and treatment planning. Mosaicing slit-lamp images is a hard task due to the absence of a physical model of the imaging process, large textureless regions and imaging artifacts, mostly reflections.

Methods

We present a comparative study of various geometric transformation models applied to retinal image mosaicing in computer-assisted slit-lamp imaging. We propose an efficient point correspondence-based framework for transformation model evaluation in a typical closed-loop motion scenario. We compare the performance of multiple linear and nonlinear models of different complexities and assess the effect of the number of points used for parameter estimation. We use a local fitting error (LFE) metric to estimate the models’ performance in pairwise registration. Because LFE alone is not conclusive regarding the problem of accumulated drift, we propose a loop closure error (LCE) metric to quantify the effect of accumulated local registration errors. We also provide a new normalization procedure for the quadratic transformation model, widely used in retinal image registration.

Results

In total, seven transformation models were evaluated on three datasets of long image sequences. LFE decreases with increasing complexity of the model, while LCE, in contrast, shows superior performance of simple models. Varying the number of point correspondences did not reveal a common trend for the LCE metric, showing an increase in the error for simple models and an unstable behavior of the complex models.

Conclusion

Our results show that simple models are less sensitive to drift and preferable for sequential mosaicing in slit-lamp imaging, while more complex models are the best choice for short-term registration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adal KM, Ensing RM, Couvert R, van Etten P, Martinez JP, Vermeer KA, van Vliet L (2014) A hierarchical coarse-to-fine approach for fundus image registration. In: Ourselin S, Modat M (ed) Biomedical image registration, Springer, pp 93–102

  2. Asmuth J, Madjarov B, Sajda P, Berger JW (2001) Mosaicking and enhancement of slit lamp biomicroscopic fundus images. Br J Ophthalmol 85(5):563–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartoli A (2008) Maximizing the predictivity of smooth deformable image warps through cross-validation. J Math Imaging Vis 31(2–3):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Broehan AM, Rudolph T, Amstutz CA, Kowal JH (2011) Real-time multimodal retinal image registration for a computer-assisted laser photocoagulation system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(10):2816–2824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Can A, Stewart CV, Roysam B, Tanenbaum HL (2002) A feature-based technique for joint, linear estimation of high-order image-to-mosaic transformations: mosaicing the curved human retina. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(3):412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chhablani J, Mathai A, Rani P, Gupta V, Arevalo JF, Kozak I (2014) Comparison of conventional pattern and novel navigated panretinal photocoagulation in proliferative diabetic retinopathy comparison of PASCAL and NAVILAS for PRP. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55(6):3432–3438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hartley R, Zisserman A (2003) Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge university press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. Irani M, Anandan P (1999) About direct methods. In: Triggs B, Zisserman A, Szeliski R (eds) Vision algorithms: theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 267–277

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kernt M, Cheuteu R, Vounotrypidis E, Haritoglou C, Kampik A, Ulbig MW, Neubauer AS (2011) Focal and panretinal photocoagulation with a navigated laser NAVILAS. Acta Ophthalmol 89(8):662–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kernt M, Cheuteu RE, Cserhati S, Seidensticker F, Liegl RG, Lang J, Haritoglou C, Kampik A, Ulbig MW, Neubauer AS (2012) Pain and accuracy of focal laser treatment for diabetic macular edema using a retinal navigated laser (Navilas). Clin Ophthalmol 6(1):289–296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Klein R (1992) Retinopathy in a population-based study. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 90:561

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Laliberté F, Gagnon L, Sheng Y (2003) Registration and fusion of retinal images-an evaluation study. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(5):661–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawson CL, Hanson RJ (1974) Solving least squares problems. Series in automatic computation, vol 161. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee S, Abràmoff MD, Reinhardt JM (2007) Validation of retinal image registration algorithms by a projective imaging distortion model. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2007. EMBS 2007. 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pp 6471–6474

  15. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McLauchlan PF, Jaenicke A (2002) Image mosaicing using sequential bundle adjustment. Image Vis Comput 20(9):751–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Richa R, Linhares R, Comunello E, Von Wangenheim A, Schnitzler JY, Wassmer B, Guillemot C, Thuret G, Gain P, Hager G (2014) Fundus image mosaicking for information augmentation in computer-assisted slit-lamp imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(6):1304–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Souza M, Richa R, Puel A, Caetano J, Comunello E, von Wangenheim A (2014) Robust visual tracking for retinal mapping in computer-assisted slit-lamp imaging. In: IEEE 27th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) 2014, pp 132–137

  19. Stewart CV, Tsai CL, Roysam B (2003) The dual-bootstrap iterative closest point algorithm with application to retinal image registration. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22(11):1379–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Szeliski R (2006) Image alignment and stitching: a tutorial. Found Trends Comput Graph Vis 2(1):1–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Torr PH, Zisserman A (1999) Feature based methods for structure and motion estimation. In: Triggs B, Zisserman A, Szeliski R (eds) Vision algorithms: theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 278–294

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yang G, Stewart CV (2004) Covariance-driven mosaic formation from sparsely-overlapping image sets with application to retinal image mosaicing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), vol. 1, pp I–804

  23. Zheng Y, Daniel E, Hunter AA, Xiao R, Gao J, Li H, Maguire MG, Brainard DH, Gee JC (2014) Landmark matching based retinal image alignment by enforcing sparsity in correspondence matrix. Med Image Anal 18(6):903–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Prokopetc.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional andor national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prokopetc, K., Bartoli, A. A comparative study of transformation models for the sequential mosaicing of long retinal sequences of slit-lamp images obtained in a closed-loop motion. Int J CARS 11, 2163–2172 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1439-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-016-1439-7

Keywords

Navigation