Advertisement

Interpolation Artefacts in Non-rigid Registration

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3750)

Abstract

Voxel based non-rigid registration of images involves finding a similarity maximising transformation that deforms a source image to the coordinate system of a target image. In order to do this, interpolation is required to estimate the source intensity values corresponding to transformed target voxels. These interpolated source intensities are used when calculating the similarity measure being optimised. In this work, we compare the extent and nature of artefactual displacements produced by voxel based non-rigid registration techniques for different interpolators and investigate their relationship to image noise and global transformation error. A per-voxel similarity gradient is calculated and the resulting vector field is used to characterise registration artefacts for each interpolator. Finally, we show that the resulting registration artefacts can generate spurious volume changes for image pairs with no expected volume change.

Keywords

Cumulative Frequency Rigid Registration Global Transformation Linear Interpolator Cumulative Frequency Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Download to read the full conference paper text

References

  1. 1.
    Ashburner, J., Hutton, C., Frackowiak, R., Johnsrude, I., Price, C., Friston, K.: Identifying global anatomical differences: Deformation-based morphometry. Human Brain Mapping 6(5), 348–357 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boardman, J.P., Bhatia, K., Counsell, S., Allsop, J., Kapellou, O., Rutherford, M.A., Edwards, A.D., Hajnal, J.V., Rueckert, D.: An evaluation of deformation-based morphometry in the developing human brain and detection of volumetric changes associated with pre-term birth. In: Ellis, R.E., Peters, T.M. (eds.) MICCAI 2003. LNCS, vol. 2878, pp. 697–704. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christensen, G.E., Johnson, H.J.: Consistent image registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 20(7), 568–582 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, G.E., Rabbit, R.D., Miller, M.I.: A deformable neuroanatomy textbook based on viscous fluid mechanics. In: Information Sciences and Systems, March 1993, pp. 211–216 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cocosco, C.A., Kollokian, V., Kwan, R.K.-S., Evans, A.C.: Brainweb: Online interface to a 3d MRI simulated brain database. NeuroImage 5(4), 425 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaser, C., Nenadic, I., Buchsbaum, B.R., Hazlett, E.A., Buchsbaum, M.S.: Deformation-based morphometry and its relation to conventional volumetry of brain lateral ventricles in MRI. Neuroimage 13(6), 1140–1145 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajnal, J.V., Saeed, N., Soar, E.J., et al.: A registration and interpolation procedure for sub-voxel matching of serially acquired MR-images. JCAT 19(2), 289–296 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keys, R.G.: Cubic convolution interpolation for digital image processing. IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech, And Signal Processing 29(6), 1153 (1981)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kubicki, M., Shenton, M.E., Salisbury, D.F., Hirayasu, Y., Kasai, K., Kikinis, R., Jolesz, F.A., McCarley, R.W.: Voxel-based morphometric analysis of gray matter in first episode schizophrenia. Neuroimage 17(4), 1711–1719 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehmann, T.M., Gonner, C., Spitzer, K.: Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18(11), 1049–1075 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maeland, E.: On the comparison of interpolation methods. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 7(3), 213–217 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., Suetens, P.: Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 16(2), 187–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ostuni, J.L., Santha, A.K.S., Mattay, V.S., et al.: Analysis of interpolation effects in the re-slicing of functional MR images. JCAT 21(5), 803–810 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pennec, X., Cachier, P., Ayache, N.: Fast non-rigid matching by gradient descent: Study and improvements of the demons algorithm. Technical Report 3706, INRIA (June 1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pluim, J.P.W., Maintz, J.B.A., Viergever, M.A.: Interpolation artefacts in mutual information-based image registration. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 77(2), 211–232 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichenbach, S.E., Geng, F.: Two-dimensional cubic convolution. IEEE Trans. Image Processing 12(8), 857 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rueckert, D., Sonoda, L.I., Hayes, C., Hill, D.L.G., Leach, M.O., Hawkes, D.J.: Non-rigid registration using free-form deformations: Application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18(8), 712–721 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skrinjar, O.M., Tagare, H.: Symmetric, transitive, geometric deformation and intensity variation invariant nonrigid image registration. In: ISBI, pp. 920–923 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sled, J.G., Zijdenbos, A.P., Evans, A.C.: A non-parametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17(1), 87–97 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thacker, N.A., Jackson, A., Moriarty, D., et al.: Improved quality of re-sliced MR images using re-normalized sinc interpolation. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 10(4), 582–588 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thévenaz, P., Blu, T., Unser, M.: Interpolation revisited. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 19(7), 739–758 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thirion, J.P.: Image matching as a diffusion process: An analogy with maxwell’s demons. Medical Image Analysis 2(3), 243–260 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsao, J.: Interpolation artifacts in multi-modality image registration based on maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22(7), 854–864 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Unser, M.: Splines: A perfect fit for signal and image processing. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 22–38 (November 1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonU.K.
  2. 2.Robert Steiner MRI Unit, Imaging Sciences Department, Clinical Sciences CentreImperial College LondonU.K.
  3. 3.Dementia Research Group, Institute of NeurologyUniversity College LondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper