Voxel-based Morphometric Analysis

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
VBM Susie Henley and Stefan Klöppel Based on slides by John Ashburner
Advertisements

Brain Images of Normal Subjects (BRAINS) Bank
VBM Voxel-based morphometry
Gordon Wright & Marie de Guzman 15 December 2010 Co-registration & Spatial Normalisation.
Unbiased Longitudinal Processing of Structural MRI in FreeSurfer Martin Reuter
Voxel-Based Analysis of Quantitative Multi-Parameter Mapping (MPM) Brain Data for Studying Tissue Microstructure, Macroscopic Morphology and Morphometry.
Basics of fMRI Preprocessing Douglas N. Greve
OverviewOverview Motion correction Smoothing kernel Spatial normalisation Standard template fMRI time-series Statistical Parametric Map General Linear.
Neuroimaging Processing : Overview, Limitations, pitfalls, etc. etc.
MfD Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM)
Introduction to FreeSurfer
Techniques for the analysis of GM structure: VBM, DBM, cortical thickness Jason Lerch.
Connectivity between MS lesion density and cortical thickness Keith Worsley Arnaud Charil Jason Lerch Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McConnell.
The structural organization of the Brain Gray matter: nerve cell bodies (neurons), glial cells, capillaries, and short nerve cell extensions (axons and.
Preprocessing II: Between Subjects John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Surface-based Analysis: Intersubject Registration and Smoothing
Voxel-Based Morphometry John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Introduction to SPM SPM fMRI Course London, May 2012 Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London.
Connectivity of aMRI and fMRI data Keith Worsley Arnaud Charil Jason Lerch Francesco Tomaiuolo Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McConnell Brain.
Voxel-Based Morphometry John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Voxel Based Morphometry
MNTP Trainee: Georgina Vinyes Junque, Chi Hun Kim Prof. James T. Becker Cyrus Raji, Leonid Teverovskiy, and Robert Tamburo.
Anatomical Measures John Ashburner zSegmentation zMorphometry zSegmentation zMorphometry.
NA-MIC National Alliance for Medical Image Computing Cortical Thickness Analysis Delphine Ribes (Internship UNC 2005/2006) Guido Gerig.
Introduction to FreeSurfer surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Coregistration and Spatial Normalisation
Functional Brain Signal Processing: EEG & fMRI Lesson 13
Detecting multivariate effective connectivity Keith Worsley, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal Jason Lerch, Montreal.
Voxel-based morphometry The methods and the interpretation (SPM based) Harma Meffert Methodology meeting 14 april 2009.
MINC meeting 2003 Pipelines: analyzing structural MR data Jason Lerch.
Morphometry BIRN Semi-Automated Shape Analysis (SASHA) JHU (CIS): M. F. Beg, C. Ceritoglu, A. Kolasny, M. I. Miller, R. Yashinski MGH (NMR): B. Fischl;
The many facets of brain aging as assessed by mri (and Freesurfer)
Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity of Freesurfer Measurements David H. Salat
Methods for Dummies Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM)
ASP algorithm Image term Stretch term Bending term Self-proximity term Vertex-vertex proximity constraints.
Multimodal Integration: Registration
Group Averaging of fMRI Data
Delphine Ribes (Internship UNC 2005/2006) Guido Gerig
Surface-based Analysis: Inter-subject Registration and Smoothing
Voxel-based Morphometric Analysis
2nd Level Analysis Methods for Dummies 2010/11 - 2nd Feb 2011
A new open-source tool for EEG source reconstruction in infants
Intro to FreeSurfer Jargon
Surface-based Analysis: Intersubject Registration and Smoothing
Introduction to Permutation for Neuroimaging HST
Surface-based Analysis: Intersubject Registration and Smoothing
20 Years of FreeSurfer PETsurfer: MRI-PET Integration using FreeSurfer Nov 17, 2017 Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging Massachusetts.
Tensor-based Surface Modeling and Analysis
Moo K. Chung1,3, Kim M. Dalton3, Richard J. Davidson2,3
Intro to FreeSurfer Jargon
Keith Worsley Keith Worsley
Computational Neuroanatomy for Dummies
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages (November 2008)
Intro to FreeSurfer Jargon
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
Detecting Gray Matter Maturation via Tensor-based Surface Morphometry
Intro to FreeSurfer Jargon
Linking Electrical Stimulation of Human Primary Visual Cortex, Size of Affected Cortical Area, Neuronal Responses, and Subjective Experience  Jonathan.
Voxel-based Morphometric Analysis
Part a is adapted from Gilmore, J. H. et al
A group-analysis tool for Freesurfer
Figure 3 Anatomical distribution of all implanted electrodes
Voxel-based Morphometric Analysis
Anatomical Measures John Ashburner
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
MultiModality Registration using Hilbert-Schmidt Estimators
Contrasts & Statistical Inference
VBM results for differences in WM volume between patients with POAG and disease-free control subjects. VBM results for differences in WM volume between.
Diagnostic performance of different VBM models.
Typical images of a patient without brain metastases derived via automatic segmentation software. Typical images of a patient without brain metastases.
Presentation transcript:

Voxel-based Morphometric Analysis Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, United States

Outline Voxel-based Morphometry Surface-based Analysis Comparisons 2

Voxel-based Morphometry

Anatomical Changes GM Subject 1 88 yo Subject 2 19 yo

Voxel-based Morphometry (VBM) How do the sizes of gray/white matter and CSF structures change between subjects/populations? GM WM CSF Subject 1 88 yo Subject 2 19 yo

Voxel-based Morphometry (VBM) How to define a volume without defining a boundary? How to compare regions without defining a region? WM CSF

Non-linear Spatial Normalization Subject 2 (Target) Subject 1 Subject 1  Subject 2 CSF Eyes move closer together Lips curl and get wider

Non-linear Spatial Normalization Subject 2 (Target) Subject 1 Subject 1  Subject 2 CSF Eyes move closer together Lips curl and get wider

Keep Track of Changes in Size CSF Voxel on the left side of mouth does not change size Voxel on the right gets much larger Eyes do not change size Quantification: Gray Matter “Density”

Jacobian Map of change in volume at each voxel in target space Subject 2 (Target) Subject 2 (Target) Subject 1 CSF Map of change in volume at each voxel in target space Eyes are 0 Left side of lips are 0 (black) Right side of lips are yellow (expansion)

Normalization and Segmentation Individual T1 (Template Space) Jacobian Individual T1 Spatial Normalization Expansion Compression Group Template (Target) Segmentations CSF WM GM Values between 0 and 1 “Density”, Partial Volume Note: in FSL, Segmentations computed in native space “Unified Segmentation”, Ashburner and Friston, NI, 2005 “Optimized VBM” Good, et al, NI, 2001. Douaud, et al, Brain. 2007.

Modulation and Smoothing (Template Space) GM Segmentation (Concentration) Multiply 3D Smooth GM Density Jacobian

Aging Gray Matter Volume Study Statistical Maps (SPM8/VBM8) p<.01 Positive Age Correlation Negative Age Correlation GM Density

Surface-based Analysis

Surface-based Analysis: Cortex Outer layer of gray matter White/Gray Surface Pial Surface

Cortical Thickness pial surface Distance between white and pial surfaces along normal vector. 1-5mm

IndividualThickness Maps 46 yo 88 yo 18 yo Male Female Salat, et al, 2004, Cerebral Cortex

A Surface-Based Coordinate System Common space for group analysis (like Talairach). Fischl, et al, 1998, NI.

Surface Spatial Smoothing 5 mm apart in 3D 25 mm apart on surface! Kernel much larger Averaging with other tissue types (WM, CSF) Averaging with other functional areas

Aging Thickness Study N=40 p<.01 Positive Age Correlation Negative Age Correlation p<.01

VBM and Thickness vs Age VBM (SPM8/VBM8) Thickness (FreeSurfer 5.0) p<.01

Comparisons Thickness does not require modulation False positive rates are much higher in VBM because of Jacobian modulation (same for surface-based when area or volume are used; Greve and Fischl, 2017) Thickness is independent of registration. VBM – harder to interpret because “density” is a mixture of thickness, surface area, gyrification, registration, and volume-based smoothing. VBM allows subcortical analysis Young (20) Old (80) 22

Which is better? Still an open question Voets, et al, 2008, NI – mixed results Hutton, et al, 2009, NI – voxel-based cortical thickness (VBCT) was more sensitive to aging than VBM False Positive Rate considerations 23

VBM Software Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm uses the VBM toolbox dbm.neuro.uni-jena.de/vbm FMRIB Software Library (FSL) www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl 24

Thanks! 25

VBM Summary Spatial Normalization Volume = Jacobian X Segmentation Strengths Cortical and subcortical Gray Matter, White Matter, CSF Easy to use Weaknesses Volume metric derived from normalization Sensitive to registration and segmentation errors Segmentation is atlas-dependent 27

Surface-based Summary Thickness (can also use area and volume) Strengths Surface-based Normalization Surface-based Smoothing Thickness independent of normalization Surface extraction atlas-independent Weaknesses No subcortical, White Matter, or CSF More complicated to analyze 28