Advertisement

A Physically-Based Statistical Deformable Model for Brain Image Analysis

  • Christophoros Nikou
  • Fabrice Heitz
  • Jean-Paul Armspach
  • Gloria Bueno
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1843)

Abstract

A probabilistic deformable model for the representation of brain structures is described. The statistically learned deformable model represents the relative location of head (skull and scalp) and brain surfaces in Magnetic Resonance Images (MRIs) and accommodates their significant variability across different individuals. The head and brain surfaces of each volume are parameterized by the amplitudes of the vibration modes of a deformable spherical mesh. For a given MRI in the training set, a vector containing the largest vibration modes describing the head and the brain is created. This random vector is statistically constrained by retaining the most significant variation modes of its Karhunen-Loeve expansion on the training population. By these means, the conjunction of surfaces are deformed according to the anatomical variability observed in the training set. Two applications of the probabilistic deformable model are presented: the deformable model-based registration of 3D multimodal (MR/SPECT) brain images without removing non-brain structures and the segmentation of the brain in MRI using the probabilistic constraints embedded in the deformable model. The multi-object deformable model may be considered as a first step towards the development of a general purpose probabilistic anatomical brain atlas.

Keywords

Registration Error Deformable Model Brain Surface Training Population Rigid Registration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    K. J. Bathe. Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Besag. On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 48(3):259–302, 1986.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Borgefors. On digital distance transforms in three dimensions. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 64(3):368–376, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. F. Cootes, C. J. Taylor, and J. Graham. Active shape models-their training and application. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 1(1):38–59, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Kervrann and F. Heitz. A hierarchical Markov modeling approach for the segmentation and tracking of deformable shapes. Graphical Models and Image Processing, 60(3):173–195, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Maes, A. Collignon, D. Vandermeulen, G. Marchal, and P. Suetens. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 16(2):187–198, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Mc Inerney and D. Terzopoulos. Deformable models in medical image analysis: a survey. Medical Image Analysis, 2(1):91–108, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Monga and R. Deriche. 3D edge detection using recursive filtering. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 53(1):76–87, 1991.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Musse, J. P. Armspach, I. J. Namer, F. Heitz, F. Hennel, and D. Grucker. Data-driven curvilinear reconstruction of 3D MRI: application to cryptogenic extratemporal epilepsy. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 16(10):1227–1235, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Nastar and N. Ayache. Frequency-based nonrigid motion analysis: Application to four dimensional medical images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(11):1069–1079, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Nikou, J. P. Armspach, F. Heitz, I.J. Namer, and D. Grucker. MR/MR and MR/SPECT registration of brain images by fast stochastic optimization of robust voxel similarity measures. Neuroimage, 8(1):30–43, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Nikou, F. Heitz, and J. P. Armspach. Robust registration of dissimilar single and multimodal images. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 5 th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’98), volume 2, pages 51–65, Freiburg, Germany, 2–6 June 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Pentland and S. Sclaroff. Closed-form solutions for physically-based shape modeling and recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13(7):730–742, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Székely, A. Keleman, A. Brechbuhler, and G. Gerig. Segmentation of 2D and 3D objects from MRI data using constrained elastic deformations of flexible Fourier contour and surface models. Medical Image Analysis, 1(1):19–34, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Terzopoulos. The computation of visible surface representations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 10(4):417–438, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophoros Nikou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabrice Heitz
    • 1
  • Jean-Paul Armspach
    • 2
  • Gloria Bueno
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire des Sciences de l’Image de l’Informatique et de la TélédétectionUniversité Strasbourg I(UPRES-A CNRS 7005)IllkirchFrance
  2. 2.Institut de Physique Biologique, Faculté de MédecineUniversité Strasbourg I (UPRES-A CNRS 7004)Strasbourg CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations