An Analysis on the Influence that the Position and Number of Control Points Have on MLS Registration of Medical Images

  • Hema P. MenonEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 678)


In this paper an analysis on the influence that the selection of fiducial points has on the Moving Least Square registration of medical images has been presented. MLS is a point based method which needs selection of fiducial (control) points. Here the mapping is weighted by the distance of current pixel from the selected point. Hence it is deemed significance to investigate on the effect that the position and number of the selected control points have on registered image. The analysis is done by manually selecting the points from rigid and non-rigid regions, near and far off regions from the two images and by also varying the number of points. To assess the results comparison has been done with the TPS registration by computing the TRE.


Moving least squares (MLS) Image registration Medical images Feature points Target registration error (TRE) 


  1. 1.
    Pluim, J.P.W., Maintz, J.B.A., Viergever, M.A.: Mutual information-based registration of medical images: a survey. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 22, 986–1004 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butz, T., Thiran, J.P.: Affine registration with feature space mutual information. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, vol. 2208, pp. 549–556. Springer-Verlag (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., Suetens, P.: Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 16, 187–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodríguez-Carranza, C.E., Loew, M.H.: A weighted and deterministic entropy measure for image registration using mutual information. Med. Imaging. Image Process. 3338, 155–166 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ioannides, A.A., Liu, L.C., Kwapien, J., Drozdz, S., Streit, M.: Coupling of regional activations in a human brain during an object and face affect recognition task. Hum. Brain Mapp. 11(2), 77–92 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tian, J., Lee, N., Theodore, R., Smith, A., Laine, L.: A partial intensity invariant feature descriptor for multimodal retinal image registration. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57(5), 1707–1718 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng, J., Tian, J., Deng, K., Dai, X., Min, X.U.: Salient feature region: A new method for retinal image registration. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 15(2), 221–232 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsai, C., Li, C., Yang, G., Lin, : The edge-driven dual-bootstrap iterative closest point algorithm for registration of multimodal fluorescein angiogram sequence. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(3), 636–649 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Almhdie, A., L´eger, C., Deriche, M., Lédée, R.: 3D registration using a new implementation of the ICP algorithm based on a comprehensive lookup matrix: application to medical imaging. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 28(12), 1523–1533 (2007). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pan, M-s, Tang, J-t, Rong, Q-s, Zhang, F.: Medical Image registration using modified iterative closest points. Int. J. Numer. Method Biomed. Eng. 27(8), 1150–1166 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woods, R.P., Grafton, S.T., Holmes, C.J., Cherry, S.R., Mazziotta, J.C.: Automated image registration: I. General methods and intrasubject, intramodality validation. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 22(1), 139–152 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andreetto, M., Cortelazzo, G.M., Lucchese, L.: Frequency domain registration of computer tomography data. In: proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission (3DPVT 2004), pp. 550–557 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heger, S., Portheine, F., Ohnsorge, J.A.K., Schkommodau, E., Radermacher, K.: User interactive registration of bone with A-mode ultrasound. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 24(2), 85–89 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzpatrick, J.M., West, J.B., Maurer, C.R.: Predicting error in rigid-body point based registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 17(5), 694–702 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moushmi, S., Sowmya, V., Soman, K.P., Empirical wavelet transform for multifocus image fusion. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. vol. 397, pp. 257–263 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sruthy, S., Latha, P., Sasi, A.P.: Image fusion technique using DT-CWT. In Proceedings—2013 IEEE International Multi Conference on Automation, Computing, Control, Communication and Compressed Sensing, iMac4s 2013, Kerala, pp. 160–164 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringAmrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita UniversityCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations