Non-Rigid Registration Assessment Without Ground Truth

R Schestowitz, Carole Twining, V S Petrovic, Timothy Cootes, W R Crum, C J Taylor

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

24 Downloads (Pure)


We compare two methods for assessing the performance of groupwise non-rigid registration algorithms. The first approach, which has been described previously, utilizes a measure of overlap between ground-truth anatomical labels. The second, which is new, exploits the fact that, given a set of non-rigidly registered images, a generative statistical model of appearance can be constructed. We observe that the quality of this model depends on the quality of the registration, and define measures of model specificity and generalisation -- based on comparing synthetic images sampled from the model, with those in the original image set -- that can be used to assess model/registration quality. We show that both approaches detect the loss of registration accuracy as the alignment of a set of correctly registered MR images of the brain is progressively perturbed. We compare the sensitivities of the two approaches and show that, as well as requiring no ground truth, specificity provides the most sensitive measure of misregistration. Finally, we use specificity and generalisation to compare three NRR algorithms.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis (MIUA), 2006.
PublisherBMVA Press
Number of pages5
Publication statusPublished - 2006
EventMedical Image Understanding and Analysis - University of Manchester
Duration: 4 Jul 20065 Jul 2006


ConferenceMedical Image Understanding and Analysis
CityUniversity of Manchester


Dive into the research topics of 'Non-Rigid Registration Assessment Without Ground Truth'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this