4.7 Article

Validating atlas-guided DOT: A comparison of diffuse optical tomography informed by atlas and subject-specific anatomies

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 1999-2006

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.031

关键词

Diffuse optical tomography; NIRS; MRI; Anatomical atlas; Registration

资金

  1. NIH [P41-RR14075, P41-RR13218, R01-EB006385, P41-RR-013218, P41-EB-015902]
  2. Comprehensive Research on Disability, Health and Welfare from Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants
  3. Japan Society for Promotion of Science [23390354, 23650217]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23390354, 23650217] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe the validation of an anatomical brain atlas approach to the analysis of diffuse optical tomography (DOT). Using MRI data from 32 subjects, we compare the diffuse optical images of simulated cortical activation reconstructed using a registered atlas with those obtained using a subject's true anatomy. The error in localization of the simulated cortical activations when using a registered atlas is due to a combination of imperfect registration, anatomical differences between atlas and subject anatomies and the localization error associated with diffuse optical image reconstruction. When using a subject-specific MRI, any localization error is due to diffuse optical image reconstruction only. In this study we determine that using a registered anatomical brain atlas results in an average localization error of approximately 18 mm in Euclidean space. The corresponding error when the subject's own MRI is employed is 9.1 mm. In general, the cost of using atlas-guided DOT in place of subject-specific MRI-guided DOT is a doubling of the localization error. Our results show that despite this increase in error, reasonable anatomical localization is achievable even in cases where the subject-specific anatomy is unavailable. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据