Registration of MR and SPECT without using external fiducial markers.

The aim of our work is to present, test and validate an automated registration method used for matching brain SPECT scans with corresponding MR scans. The method was applied on a data set consisting of ten brain IDEX SPECT scans and ten T1- and T2-weighted MR scans of the same subjects. Of two subjects a CT scan was also made. (Semi-) automated algorithms were used to extract the brain from the MR, CT and SPECT images. Next, a surface registration technique called chamfer matching was used to match the segmented brains. A perturbation study was performed to determine the sensitivity of the matching results to the choice of the starting values. Furthermore, the SPECT segmentation threshold was varied to study its effect on the resulting parameters and a comparison between the use of MR T1- and T2-weighted images was made. Finally, the two sets of CT scans were used to estimate the accuracy by matching MR to CT and comparing the MR-SPECT match to the SPECT-CT match. The perturbation study showed that for initial perturbations up to 6 cm the algorithm fails in less than 4% of the cases. A variation of the SPECT segmentation threshold over a realistic range (25%) caused an average variation in the optimal match of 0.28 cm vector length. When T2 is used instead of T1 the stability of the algorithm is comparable but the results are less realistic due the large deformations. Finally, a comparison of the direct SPECT-MR match and the indirect match with CT as intermediate yields a discrepancy of 0.4 cm vector length. We conclude that the accuracy of our automatic matching algorithm for SPECT and MR, in which no external markers were used, is comparable to the accuracies reported in the literature for non-automatic methods or methods based on external markers. The proposed method is efficient and insensitive to small variations in SPECT segmentation.

Pattern electroretinogram can be more than the sum of local luminance responses.

It is generally accepted that the pattern electroretinogram for very large spatial elements is the result of local luminance stimulation. Responses due to the luminance differences between elements may be assumed to be relatively unimportant because in the case of large elements only few retinal units are stimulated by gradients. With decreasing pattern element size one wonders to what extent the electroretinogram continues to be based on the local luminance stimulation. We investigated this question using 8 Hz checkerboard reversal and compared the pattern recordings with the recordings resulting from the same stimulus field modulated homogeneously (focal electroretinogram). A 100% modulated checkerboard at retinal level may be considerably less modulated because of imperfect optics of the eye. So the pattern electroretinogram should be compared with homogeneous field stimulation of correspondingly lower modulation depth. On the basis of the optical transfer properties of the eye we compared by subtracting the proper focal electroretinogram from the pattern electroretinogram. The difference response was virtually zero for check sizes larger than 120'. For checks from 60' down the difference response was of the same order of magnitude as the adjusted focal recording. This difference response for eyes with normal optics is largest around 30'; its wave form was found to be rather invariant with check size.

The point-spread function of the eye from 0 degrees to 100 degrees and the pattern electroretinogram.

In studies on the pattern electroretinogram the quality of the retinal image is a major concern. The use of contact lens electrodes was rejected since a good pattern could not be recorded. This is believed to be due to blurring of the retinal image. As indicator of image quality the patient's visual acuity is often used. We wondered whether this is a sufficient criterion. The retinal image is the product of the whole optical point-spread function of the eye whereas visual acuity refers only to the central portion of this function. On the basis of existing reports it can be estimated that for the young normal eye the outer edges of this function (straylight) causes considerable loss of contrast. The strength of the straylight can be much greater in older eyes. We studied the relation between the point-spread function including straylight and the pattern electroretinogram in normal eyes and some pathological cases. The measurements proved to follow the calculated contrasts on the basis of a local luminance model, with the exception of enhancement (tuning) around 60' checksize for the young normal eye. Because of the considerable differences in straylight in an older population one has to take into account that loss of pattern electroretinogram can be suffered in patients with otherwise good visual acuity.