A Growing Trend Larger and more complex models are being produced to explain brain imaging data. Bigger and better computers allow more powerful models.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FIL SPM Course 2010 Spatial Preprocessing
Advertisements

DARTEL John Ashburner 2008.
VBM Susie Henley and Stefan Klöppel Based on slides by John Ashburner
SPM5 Segmentation. A Growing Trend Larger and more complex models are being produced to explain brain imaging data. Bigger and better computers allow.
Image Registration John Ashburner
Image Registration Carlton CHU
Nonlinear Shape Modelling John Ashburner. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
Experiments on a New Inter- Subject Registration Method John Ashburner 2007.
VBM Voxel-based morphometry
Overview fMRI time-series Statistical Parametric Map Smoothing kernel
Realignment – Motion Correction (gif from FMRIB at Oxford)
Computational Neuroanatomy John Ashburner SmoothingSmoothing Motion CorrectionMotion Correction Between Modality Co-registrationBetween.
MRI preprocessing and segmentation.
Gordon Wright & Marie de Guzman 15 December 2010 Co-registration & Spatial Normalisation.
OverviewOverview Motion correction Smoothing kernel Spatial normalisation Standard template fMRI time-series Statistical Parametric Map General Linear.
Pre-processing for “Voxel- Based Morphometry” John Ashburner The Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Coregistration and Normalisation By Lieke de Boer & Julie Guerin.
Spatial Preprocessing
Jeroen Hermans, Frederik Maes, Dirk Vandermeulen, Paul Suetens
Image Warping using Empirical Bayes John Ashburner & Karl J. Friston. Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK.
Multiple testing Justin Chumbley Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research Institute for Empirical Research in Economics University of Zurich With.
Zurich SPM Course 2011 Spatial Preprocessing Ged Ridgway With thanks to John Ashburner and the FIL Methods Group.
Bayesian models for fMRI data
Bayesian models for fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 06 May 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research.
Spatial preprocessing of fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis 25 February 2009 Klaas Enno Stephan Laboratory for Social and Neural Systrems.
Spatial preprocessing of fMRI data
Preprocessing II: Between Subjects John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Voxel-Based Morphometry John Ashburner Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
FMRI Preprocessing John Ashburner. Contents *Preliminaries *Rigid-Body and Affine Transformations *Optimisation and Objective Functions *Transformations.
Review Rong Jin. Comparison of Different Classification Models  The goal of all classifiers Predicating class label y for an input x Estimate p(y|x)
FIL SPM Course May 2011 Spatial preprocessing Ged Ridgway With thanks to John Ashburner and the FIL Methods Group.
Co-registration and Spatial Normalisation
SegmentationSegmentation C. Phillips, Institut Montefiore, ULg, 2006.
Anatomical Measures John Ashburner zSegmentation zMorphometry zSegmentation zMorphometry.
DTU Medical Visionday May 27, 2009 Generative models for automated brain MRI segmentation Koen Van Leemput Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical.
Coregistration and Spatial Normalisation
CS 782 – Machine Learning Lecture 4 Linear Models for Classification  Probabilistic generative models  Probabilistic discriminative models.
Bayesian Inference and Posterior Probability Maps Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course,
Feature based deformable registration of neuroimages using interest point and feature selection Leonid Teverovskiy Center for Automated Learning and Discovery.
M. Pokric, P.A. Bromiley, N.A. Thacker, M.L.J. Scott, and A. Jackson University of Manchester Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering Probabilistic.
Spatial Preprocessing Ged Ridgway, FMRIB/FIL With thanks to John Ashburner and the FIL Methods Group.
Computer Vision Lecture 6. Probabilistic Methods in Segmentation.
Voxel-based morphometry The methods and the interpretation (SPM based) Harma Meffert Methodology meeting 14 april 2009.
Bayesian models for fMRI data Methods & models for fMRI data analysis November 2011 With many thanks for slides & images to: FIL Methods group, particularly.
Lecture 2: Statistical learning primer for biologists
Volumetric Intersubject Registration John Ashburner Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.
Image Registration John Ashburner
Bayesian Methods Will Penny and Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, UK SPM Course, London, May 12.
Guillaume Flandin Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London SPM Course Zurich, February 2008 Bayesian Inference.
Spatial processing of FMRI data And why you may care.
Ch 1. Introduction Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, C. M. Bishop, Updated by J.-H. Eom (2 nd round revision) Summarized by K.-I.
Unsupervised Learning Part 2. Topics How to determine the K in K-means? Hierarchical clustering Soft clustering with Gaussian mixture models Expectation-Maximization.
Zurich SPM Course 2012 Spatial Preprocessing
Classification of unlabeled data:
Special Topics In Scientific Computing
fMRI Preprocessing John Ashburner
Zurich SPM Course 2011 Spatial Preprocessing
Keith Worsley Keith Worsley
Computational Neuroanatomy for Dummies
Image Preprocessing for Idiots
PRAKASH CHOCKALINGAM, NALIN PRADEEP, AND STAN BIRCHFIELD
Spatial Preprocessing
Where did we stop? The Bayes decision rule guarantees an optimal classification… … But it requires the knowledge of P(ci|x) (or p(x|ci) and P(ci)) We.
Image Registration 박성진.
Image Registration John Ashburner
SPM2: Modelling and Inference
Anatomical Measures John Ashburner
Bayesian Inference in SPM2
Wellcome Centre for Neuroimaging, UCL, UK.
Mixture Models with Adaptive Spatial Priors
Presentation transcript:

Anatomical Image Analysis John Ashburner Functional Imaging Lab, 12 Queen Square, London, UK.

A Growing Trend Larger and more complex models are being produced to explain brain imaging data. Bigger and better computers allow more powerful models to be used More experience among software developers Older and wiser More engineers - rather than e.g. psychiatrists & biochemists This presentation is about combining various preprocessing procedures for anatomical images into a single generative model.

Traditional View of Pre-processing Brain image processing is often thought of as a pipeline procedure. One tool applied before another etc... For example… Original Image Skull Strip Non-uniformity Correct Classify Brain Tissues Extract Brain Surfaces

Another example (for VBM)

Bias Correction helps Registration MRI images are corrupted by a smooth intensity non-uniformity (bias). Image intensity non-uniformity artefact has a negative impact on most registration approaches. Much better if this artefact is corrected. Corrected image Image with bias artefact

Bias Correction helps Segmentation Similar tissues no longer have similar intensities. Artefact should be corrected to enable intensity-based tissue classification.

Registration helps Segmentation SPM99 and SPM2 require tissue probability maps to be overlaid prior to segmentation.

Segmentation helps Bias Correction Bias correction should not eliminate differences between tissue classes. Can be done by make all white matter about the same intensity make all grey matter about the same intensity etc Currently fairly standard practice to combine bias correction and tissue classification

Segmentation helps Registration A convoluted method using SPM2 Spatially Normalised MRI Template Original MRI Affine register Spatial Normalisation - writing Affine Transform Segment Grey Matter Spatial Normalisation - estimation Tissue probability maps Deformation

Unified Segmentation The solution to this circularity is to put everything in the same generative model. A solution is found by repeatedly alternating among classification, bias correction and registration steps. The generative model involves: Mixture of Gaussians (MOG) Bias Correction Component Warping (Non-linear Registration) Component

Gaussian Probability Density If intensities are assumed to be Gaussian of mean mk and variance s2k, then the probability of a value yi is:

Non-Gaussian Probability Distribution A non-Gaussian probability density function can be modelled by a Mixture of Gaussians (MOG): Mixing proportion - positive and sums to one

Belonging Probabilities Belonging probabilities are assigned by normalising to one.

Mixing Proportions The mixing proportion gk represents the prior probability of a voxel being drawn from class k - irrespective of its intensity. So:

Non-Gaussian Intensity Distributions Multiple Gaussians per tissue class allow non-Gaussian intensity distributions to be modelled.

Probability of Whole Dataset If the voxels are assumed to be independent, then the probability of the whole image is the product of the probabilities of each voxel: It is often easier to work with negative log-probabilities:

Modelling a Bias Field A bias field is included, such that the required scaling at voxel i, parameterised by b, is ri(b). Replace the means by mk/ri(b) Replace the variances by (sk/ri(b))2

Modelling a Bias Field After rearranging: y r(b) y r(b)

Tissue Probability Maps Tissue probability maps (TPMs) are used instead of the proportion of voxels in each Gaussian as the prior. ICBM Tissue Probabilistic Atlases. These tissue probability maps are kindly provided by the International Consortium for Brain Mapping, John C. Mazziotta and Arthur W. Toga.

“Mixing Proportions” Tissue probability maps for each class are included. The probability of obtaining class k at voxel i, given weights g is then:

Deforming the Tissue Probability Maps Tissue probability images are deformed according to parameters a. The probability of obtaining class k at voxel i, given weights g and parameters a is then:

The Objective Function The Extended Model By combining the modified P(ci=k|q) and P(yi|ci=k,q), the overall objective function (E) becomes: The Objective Function

Optimisation The “best” parameters are those that minimise this objective function. Optimisation involves finding them. Begin with starting estimates, and repeatedly change them so that the objective function decreases each time.

Alternate between optimising different groups of parameters Steepest Descent Start Optimum Alternate between optimising different groups of parameters

Schematic of optimisation Repeat until convergence... Hold g, m, s2 and a constant, and minimise E w.r.t. b - Levenberg-Marquardt strategy, using dE/db and d2E/db2 Hold g, m, s2 and b constant, and minimise E w.r.t. a - Levenberg-Marquardt strategy, using dE/da and d2E/da2 Hold a and b constant, and minimise E w.r.t. g, m and s2 -Use an Expectation Maximisation (EM) strategy. end

Levenberg-Marquardt Optimisation LM optimisation is used for nonlinear registration (a) and bias correction (b). Requires first and second derivatives of the objective function (E). Parameters a and b are updated by Increase l to improve stability (at expense of decreasing speed of convergence).

Expectation Maximisation is used to update m, s2 and g For iteration (n), alternate between: E-step: Estimate belonging probabilities by: M-step: Set q(n+1) to values that reduce:

Linear Regularisation Some bias fields and distortions are more probable (a priori) than others. Encoded using Bayes rule: Prior probability distributions can be modelled by a multivariate normal distribution. Mean vector ma and mb Covariance matrix Sa and Sb -log[P(a)] = (a-ma)TSa-1(a-ma) + const

Initial Affine Registration The procedure begins with a Mutual Information affine registration of the image with the tissue probability maps. MI is computed from a 4x256 joint probability histogram. See D'Agostino, Maes, Vandermeulen & P. Suetens. “Non-rigid Atlas-to-Image Registration by Minimization of Class-Conditional Image Entropy”. Proc. MICCAI 2004. LNCS 3216, 2004. Pages 745-753. Joint Probability Histogram Background voxels excluded

Background Voxels are Excluded An intensity threshold is found by fitting image intensities to a mixture of two Gaussians. This threshold is used to exclude most of the voxels containing only air.

Spatially normalised BrainWeb phantoms (T1, T2 and PD) Tissue probability maps of GM and WM Cocosco, Kollokian, Kwan & Evans. “BrainWeb: Online Interface to a 3D MRI Simulated Brain Database”. NeuroImage 5(4):S425 (1997)

Further Reading Ashburner & Friston. “Unified Segmentation”. To appear in NeuroImage. SPM Web Pages Look out for SPM5 http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/ Koen Van Leemput’s page contains some nice slides on tissue classification http://users.tkk.fi/~vanleemp/

A View of Science Science is about building models that can make predictions about the world. If it’s not predictive, then it’s not science. Biological sciences are messy and kind of fuzzy. Need to work probabilistically. The only consistent system for working with probabilities is Bayesian. “Dutch Book” arguments.

Bayes Rule y - the data q - a theory, model, or set of parameters P(q|y) - probability of q given y (posterior probability) P(y|q) - probability of y given q (likelihood) P(q) - probability of q (prior probability) P(y) - probability of y (evidence) P(q,y) - probability of q and y (joint probability)