Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Quantitative validation of 3D image registration techniques
Author(s): Kerrie S. Holton Tainter; Udita Taneja; Richard A. Robb
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

Multimodality images obtained from different medical imaging systems such as magnetic resonance (MR), computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) provide largely complementary characteristic or diagnostic information. Therefore, it is an important research objective to `fuse' or combine this complementary data into a composite form which would provide synergistic information about the objects under examination. An important first step in the use of complementary fused images is 3D image registration, where multi-modality images are brought into spatial alignment so that the point-to-point correspondence between image data sets is known. Current research in the field of multimodality image registration has resulted in the development and implementation of several different registration algorithms, each with its own set of requirements and parameters. Our research has focused on the development of a general paradigm for measuring, evaluating and comparing the performance of different registration algorithms. Rather than evaluating the results of one algorithm under a specific set of conditions, we suggest a general approach to validation using simulation experiments, where the exact spatial relationship between data sets is known, along with phantom data, to characterize the behavior of an algorithm via a set of quantitative image measurements. This behavior may then be related to the algorithm's performance with real patient data, where the exact spatial relationship between multimodality images is unknown. Current results indicate that our approach is general enough to apply to several different registration algorithms. Our methods are useful for understanding the different sources of registration error and for comparing the results between different algorithms.

Paper Details

Date Published: 12 May 1995
PDF: 16 pages
Proc. SPIE 2434, Medical Imaging 1995: Image Processing, (12 May 1995); doi: 10.1117/12.208721
Show Author Affiliations
Kerrie S. Holton Tainter, Guy's Hospital (United States)
Udita Taneja, Mayo Foundation and Clinic (United States)
Richard A. Robb, Mayo Foundation and Clinic (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 2434:
Medical Imaging 1995: Image Processing
Murray H. Loew, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top