Elsevier

NeuroImage

Volume 44, Issue 1, 1 January 2009, Pages 99-111
NeuroImage

Issues with threshold masking in voxel-based morphometry of atrophied brains

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.045Get rights and content

Abstract

There is great interest in using automatic computational neuroanatomy tools to study ageing and neurodegenerative disease. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) is one of the most widely used of such techniques. VBM performs voxel-wise statistical analysis of smoothed spatially normalised segmented Magnetic Resonance Images. There are several reasons why the analysis should include only voxels within a certain mask. We show that one of the most commonly used strategies for defining this mask runs a major risk of excluding from the analysis precisely those voxels where the subjects' brains were most vulnerable to atrophy. We investigate the issues related to mask construction, and recommend the use of alternative strategies which greatly decrease this danger of false negatives.

Introduction

In essence, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) (Ashburner and Friston, 2000) involves voxel-wise statistical analysis of data derived from structural Magnetic Resonance (MR) brain images of multiple subjects. The images analysed are obtained through tissue segmentation, spatial normalisation, and spatial smoothing. Statistical analysis employs a mass-univariate parametric or non-parametric general linear model at each voxel. More precisely, the calculations are performed at each voxel within some mask. There are several reasons why masking is necessary, mostly related to the multiple comparison problem. Family-wise error (FWE) correction using random field theory (RFT) is generally more powerful for smaller analysis regions (this is commented on further in the discussion), and perhaps more importantly, masking is necessary for successful estimation of the smoothness of the residuals (John Ashburner, personal communication), which is a key part of the RFT correction procedure (Kiebel et al., 1999). If non-parametric permutation methods (Nichols and Holmes, 2002) are employed for FWE correction, the effect of the analysis region on computational complexity may also be important (Belmonte and Yurgelun-Todd, 2001). Correction of the false-discovery rate (Genovese et al., 2002) also depends on masking, since non-brain voxels could otherwise skew the distribution of p-values on which it is based. Furthermore, masking can also partially alleviate a problem of implausible false positives occurring outside the brain due to the very low variance in voxels with consistently low smoothed tissue density — the extreme limit of the phenomenon described by Reimold et al. (2006). Finally, while not specifically considered here, multivariate machine learning, classification or decoding approaches (Lao et al., 2004, Vemuri et al., 2008, Friston et al., 2008) can also benefit from masking as an initial feature selection or dimensionality reduction step.

Having emphasised above that smaller masks generally lead to higher sensitivity and clarified interpretation, it is important to recognise the obvious risk that overly restrictive masks will lead to false negatives, as potentially interesting voxels are excluded from the statistical analysis. In this paper, we argue that there is a particular danger of false negatives arising in VBM studies of pathological brains when computing the analysis mask using a commonly employed approach with settings that appear reasonable a priori. This approach is used by the popular Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) software (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/). We recommend the use of different mask-generation strategies, which we show to reduce this danger. In a three-part experiment using SPM, we (a) use simulated data to investigate properties of preprocessing relevant to masking; (b) explore the behaviour of standard and more novel methods of masking, considering variable patient group composition; and (c) test the practical importance of our recommendation on a particular example of a real VBM study. We propose two main masking options: one is a fully objective parameter-free algorithm, which we hope will find wide-spread applicability; the other allows expert knowledge to be exercised in cases where the automatic strategy is found to be unsuitable.

Section snippets

Masking strategies

The SPM software commonly used for VBM studies offers several alternatives to specify the mask for statistical analysis. If available, a precomputed mask can be explicitly requested, or the analysis mask can be automatically derived by excluding voxels in which any of the images have intensity values below a certain threshold. This threshold can be specified as an absolute value, constant for all the images, or as a relative fraction of each image's ‘global’ value. The global value can itself

Simulated images

Fig. 1 illustrates typical results for VBM preprocessing using SPM5's unified segmentation model (Ashburner and Friston, 2005). The estimated segmentation is in close agreement with the simulation's underlying model,3 but the inter-subject correspondence following spatial normalisation is only approximate. This imperfect overlap

Conclusions

With many diseases there is a spectrum of severity of focal atrophy; the most vulnerable regions might also be the most likely to have outlying subjects with particularly severe absence of tissue. The standard masking procedure in the SPM software risks missing findings in the most severely atrophied brain regions. It is important to note that the missed atrophy when using overly restrictive masks might not be readily apparent from consideration of the ‘glass-brain’ maximum intensity projection

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to John Ashburner, for helpful comments on the need for masking in residual smoothness estimation, and to Susie Henley and Jonathan Rohrer for helpful discussion and for experimenting with our new mask-creation software. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, who made several important suggestions. G.R.R. is funded by an EPSRC CASE Studentship, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. J.D.W. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship. N.C.F. acknowledges support

Cited by (256)

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text