1 / 14

Image Registration Lecture ?: Detecting Failure & Assessing Success June 14, 2005

Image Registration Lecture ?: Detecting Failure & Assessing Success June 14, 2005. Prof. Charlene Tsai. Introduction. The last component is a registration embedded system is often the determination of the quality of alignment, i.e. success for failure

Download Presentation

Image Registration Lecture ?: Detecting Failure & Assessing Success June 14, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Image Registration Lecture ?: Detecting Failure & Assessing SuccessJune 14, 2005 Prof. Charlene Tsai

  2. Introduction • The last component is a registration embedded system is often the determination of the quality of alignment, i.e. success for failure • The alignment need to be perfect, but it must be adequate for the problem at hand. • How to measure the degree of alignment? Lecture 1

  3. Measure of Success • Quality of alignment has been estimagted in published work • by visual inspection, • by comparison with a gold standard, or • by some self-consistency measure • Two distinct notion of success: • for a class of image pairs • for a given image pair Lecture 1

  4. Target Registration Error • We have been using this type of error • Let (p,q) be the pair of corresponding points in the 2 images and T the mapping that takes the 1st image to the 2nd. • Often, only the magnitude of TRE is reported. Lecture 1

  5. Fiducial Registration Error • Very similar to TRE, but applies only to “fiducial” features. • Fiducial features are selected because of their locatability • Easily visible anatomical features • Centroid of specially designed fiducial markers affixed to the anatomy before imaging Lecture 1

  6. Comparison between TRE & FRE • TRE is more meaningful than FRE • TRE measured at clinically relevant point, whereas FRE limited to fiducial points • FRE may over- or underestimate registration error. • Why? • Other measures: • Distance between lines • Distance between surfaces • Angular displacement for rigid-body xform Lecture 1

  7. Methods for Verification • Compare with a ground truth transformation • Some gold standard registration system with accuracy known to be high. • Registration Circuits • Consistency measure among a set of images Lecture 1

  8. Gold Standards • May be based on • computer simulation, • phantoms (better for development work), • Cadavers (limited due to changees at death), or • Patients (most difficult choice) Lecture 1

  9. Computer Simulations • Computer simulations are image pairs generated by computer. • Possible to produce both images, but often one is simulated from another using known geometrical transformation. • Advantages: • Transformation is know exactly • Transformation is readily available • Disavantages: • Lack of realism due to anatomical changes, such as respiration, cardiac cycle, etc Lecture 1

  10. (con’t) • Providing an upper bound on success • Useful for system under development • Intramodality registration • Using only geometrical transformation • Due to interpolation issues, images with isotropic voxel/pixel are prefered, such as MR volumes. • Intermodality registration • Identify issue types • Generate new graylevel values according to the physical processes of the 2nd image modality Lecture 1

  11. Target Features • Stereotatic frame attached to the skull • Appropriate only for rigid anatomy because all positioning is measured relative to the frame • Providing easier and reliable verification, since neither the anatomy nor the pathology are involved in frame-base registration Lecture 1

  12. Fiducial Marker Systems • Fiducial markers are implanted on the skull or skin. • Excellent gold standard for both intramodality and intermodality • Disadvantages: • High invasiveness • Subject to relative motion of the marker and anatomy between image acquisitions. More so for skin-attached markers Lecture 1

  13. Registration Circuits • A consistency measure involving at least three images of the same modality. • By independently registering A->B, B->C, and C->A, a target point in A can be mapped using the circuit back to A. • Serious weakness is the assumption that the errors between registrations are uncorrelated • Inevitably violated, since successive registrations, A->B and B->C, say, share a common image (B). Lecture 1

  14. Conclusion • Improving registration accuracy is an important goal. • But without a means of validation, no registration method can be accepted as a clinical tool. Lecture 1

More Related