Schestowitz Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
!!!Assessing the Accuracy of Non-Rigid Registration With and Without Ground Truth

R. S. Schestowitz^{1}, W. R. Crum^{2}, V. S. Petrovic^{1}, C. J. Twining^{1}, T. F. Cootes^{1} and C. J. Taylor^{1}


^{1}Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, University
of Manchester
Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT,
United Kingdom


^{2}Centre for Medical Image Computing, Department of
Computer Science, University
College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom





A diverse collection or methods exist for the problem
of non-rigid registration, whereby a set of images is
to be aligned. We perceive a deficiency, however, in
the ways such registrations are validated or even
evaluated. Hereby we present two methods for evaluating
non-rigid registration. One of the methods requires
ground-truth solutions to be provided a priori, yet the
other does not. We shall present results, which confirm
that both methods are valid and proceed to calculating
their sensitivities. We find that the method which
requires ground-truth solutions is not as sensitive as
the method which need not have anything but the raw
images and the corresponding deformation fields.

The aim of registration is to transform images until
corresponding structures across them overlap.
Registration is an optimisation problem wherein the
degree of overlap, as measured by some metric, needs to
be increased. Overlap is established by transformation
of the images. Transformations and measures of
similarity fall under a framework that we call the "
objective function", which fully describes the approach
a registration algorithm takes.

There are further factor that distinguish one
registration approach from another. Most notably, there
is divide over whether pairs of images should be
handled apart (pair-wise) rather than the whole group
of images simultaneously (group-wise). Therefore, there
needs be an unbiased method for assessing the
performance of registration algorithms. Such a method
must first be validated using careful experimentation,
which incorporates the notion of correct solutions.

The first of the methods to be described relies on the
existence of ground-truth data such as boundaries of
image elements or the location of distinguishable
points. Having registered an image set, the method can
measure overlap between elements that have been
annotated, thus implying how good a registration was.

Our latter method is able to assess registration
without ground truth of any form. The approach involves
automatic construction of appearance models from the
registered data, subsequently evaluating, using model
syntheses, the quality of that model. Quality of the
registration is tightly-related to the quality of its
resulting model and the two tasks, namely model
construction and image registration, are innately the
same. Both involve the identification of corresponding
points, also known as landmarks in the context of
model-building. Expressed differently, a registration
produces a dense set of corresponding points and models
of appearance require nothing but the images and the
correspondences in order to be built.

To put the validity of both methods to the test, we
assembled a set of 2-D 38 MR images of the brain. Each
of these images was carefully annotated to identify
different compartments within the brain. These
anatomical compartments can be perceived as simplified
labels that faithfully define brain structure. Our
first method of assessment uses the Tanimoto overlap
measure to calculate the degree to which labels across
the image set overlap. In that respect, it exploits
ground truth, which has been identified by an expert,
to reason about registration quality.

The second method takes an entirely different approach.
It feeds on the results of a registration algorithm,
where correspondences have been highlighted, and builds
an appearance model given the images and their
correspondences. From that model, many synthetic brain
images are derived. Vectorisation of these images
allows us to embed (or mentally visualise) them in a
high-dimensional space. We can then compare the spatial
cloud that these synthetic images form with the cloud
that is composed from the original image set -- the set
from which the model has been build. Computing the
overlap between these clouds gives insight into the
quality of the registration. Simply put, it is a model
fit evaluation paradigm. The better the registration,
the greater the overlap between those clouds will be.

To compute overlap between two clouds of data, we have
devised measures that we refer to as Specificity and
Generalisablity. The former tells how well the model
fits its seminal data, whereas the latter tells how
well the data fits its derived model. It is a
reciprocal relationship that 'locks' a data to its
model and vice versa. We calculate Specificity and
Generalisablity by measuring distances in space. As we
seek a measure that is tolerant to slight differences,
we use the shuffle distance, not neglecting to compare
it against Euclidean distance.

Our assessment framework, by which we test both
methods, uses non-rigid registration, whereby many
degrees of freedom are involved in image
transformations. To systematically generate data over
which our hypotheses can be tested, we perturb the
brain data using clamped-plate splines. In this brain
data, correspondences among images are said to be
perfect so they can only ever be degraded. We then wish
to show that as the degree of perturbation increases,
so do the measures of our registration assessment methods.

In our extensive batch of experiments we perturbed the
datasets at progressively increasing levels, which led
to well-understood misregistration of the data. We
repeated these experiments 10 times to demonstrate that
both approaches to assessment are consistent are all
results unbiased. Having investigated and plotted the
measures of overlap for each perturbation extent, we
see a rather linear decrease in the amount of overlap
(Figure X). This means that, as ground-truth-based
registration is eroded, the overlap-based measure is
able to detect that and the response is very
well-behaved, thus meaningful and reliable.

<Graphics file: ./Graphics/1.eps>
    <Graphics file: ./Graphics/2.eps>


          Figures X&Y. a
          b
          c.

We then undertake another assessment task, this time
exploiting the method which does not use ground truth.
We notice a very similar behaviour (Figure Y), which is
evidence that the latter is a powerful and reliable
method of assessing the degree of misregistration, or
conversely the quality of registration.

As a last step, we embark on the task of comparing the
two algorithm, identifying sensitivity as the factor
which is most important. Sensitivity reflects on our
ability to confidently tell apart a good registration
from a worse one. The slighter the difference which can
be correctly detected, the more sensitive the method.
To calculate sensitivity, we compute the amount of
change in terms of mean pixel deformation --
deformation from the correct solution, that is. We then
look at differences in our assessor's value, be it
overlap, or Specificity, or Generalisation. We also
stress the need to take account of the errors bars as
there is both an inter-experiment error and
measure-specific error; the two must be composed
carefully. The derivation of sensitivity can be
expressed as follows:

placeholder

where X is something... (TODO)

<Graphics file: ./Graphics/3.eps>


          Figure Z. a
          b
          c.

Figure Z suggests that for roughly any selection of
shuffle distance neighbourhood, the method which does
not require ground truth is more sensitive than the
method which depends on it. If the trends of these
curves are looked at closely, it can be observed that
they approximately overlap, which implies that the two
methods are very closely correlated.

In summary, we have shown two valid methods for
assessing non-rigid registration. The methods are
correlated in practice, but the principles they build
upon are quite different. Their pre-requisites -- if
any -- likewise. Registration can be evaluated with or
without ground-truth annotation and the behaviour of
the measures are consistent across distinct data, are
well-behaved, and are sensitive. Both methods have been
successfully applied to assessment of non-rigid
registration algorithms and both methods led to the
expected conclusions. That aspect of the work,
nonetheless, is beyond the scope of this paper.
Schestowitz Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
