Chantal Tax1,2, Tom Dela Haije3, Andrea Fuster3, Carl-Fredrik Westin2, Max A. Viergever1, Luc Florack3, and Alexander Leemans1
1Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States, 3Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
Synopsis
The prevalence of sheet structure in the brain has been a debated issue since its proposal. This structure can be analyzed by means of the Lie bracket, which can be derived from diffusion MRI (dMRI) data. Due to the occurrence of noise, however, it is difficult to quantify to what degree the local structure effectively resembles a sheet. In this work, we propose a new and robust local measure based on the Lie bracket that can be interpreted as the sheet probability index (SPI).Introduction
The prevalence of sheet
structure (the colloquial term for surfaces formed by two families of crossing fiber
pathways) in the brain has been a debated issue since its proposal1,2,3.
This structure can be analyzed by means of the Lie bracket1,4,5, which
is a vector field that captures geometric properties of a pair of vector
fields. In practice, such a pair of vector fields can be derived from diffusion
MRI (dMRI) data by extracting peaks of the diffusion or fiber orientation
distribution functions (FODs). In the case of sheet structure, the Lie bracket is
constrained to lie in the plane spanned by the pair of vectors (or,
equivalently, the “normal component of the Lie bracket” should be zero). This property
can be used to distinguish “sheets” from “non-sheets” in dMRI data4,5.
Due to the occurrence of noise,
however, the sheet-constraint is never exactly fulfilled, and a single
measurement does not provide information on its variability. This makes it difficult
to quantify to what degree the local structure effectively resembles a sheet. In
this work, we propose a new and robust local measure based on the Lie bracket
that can be interpreted as the sheet probability index (SPI).
Methods
Lie bracket computation
We estimate the voxel-wise Lie
bracket normal component $$$[X,Y]^\perp$$$ of
pairs of vector fields $$$X$$$, $$$Y$$$ with a method described in Tax et
al.4,5. $$$[X,Y]^\perp$$$ is zero if there is local sheet structure, and
deviates from zero if the local structure does not resemble a sheet.
All vector fields were derived from peaks calculated using
constrained spherical deconvolution8,9 (CSD, $$$l_{max}=8$$$). For voxels containing three or more vectors all possible pairs are considered.
Sheet probability index (SPI)
To quantify the effect of noise on the Lie bracket, we generated $$$N_b$$$ residual bootstrap realizations10 for
a single set of noisy measurements.
Currently we
rely on the bootstraps being normally distributed with data-derived mean $$$\mu$$$ and standard deviation $$$\sigma$$$, which is verified using a Shapiro-Wilks test. When normality holds, we
can calculate the integral probability $$$P_\lambda$$$ bounded
by $$$-\lambda$$$ and $$$\lambda$$$ (where we can tune the parameter $$$\lambda$$$) for
the estimated distribution $$$N(\mu,\sigma)$$$.
$$$P_\lambda$$$ produces
a value that lies between $$$0$$$ and $$$1$$$ which we coin the sheet
probability index (SPI) of the local sheet structure. Choosing a higher value for $$$\lambda$$$ means that the impact of deviations from zero on
the estimated SPI will become smaller.
Data
Simulations: Analytical pairs of vector fields with known
Lie bracket normal component (a “sheet” pair and “non-sheet” pair, Fig. 1) are
used as the basis for simulated diffusion MRI data ($$$60$$$ directions, $$$b=3000s/mm^2$$$ using a ZeppelinStickDot model6).
Rician noise was added with $$$SNR=20$$$;
MRI data: A single shell ($$$90$$$
directions, $$$b=3000\,s/mm^2$$$)
of a Human Connectome Project7 dataset was extracted (voxel size $$$1.25\,mm$$$).
Results
Simulations
Fig. 2 shows the range and mean
of the estimated Lie bracket normal component $$$\widehat{[\cdot,\cdot]}^\perp$$$, where we have evaluated the pairs of vector fields (sheet in green and
non-sheet in red) at different locations. The bootstraps (Fig. 2a) are well-defined
representations of the “real” noise realizations (Fig. 2b). For the non-sheet case $$$P_\lambda$$$ decreases with
increasing true $$$[\cdot,\cdot]^\perp$$$ ($$$\lambda=0.008$$$).
MRI data
Fig. 3a shows two examples of the $$$N_b=20$$$ bootstraps on real data. Fig. 3b shows
histograms of $$$\widehat{[\cdot,\cdot]}^\perp$$$ at
different locations (high-, medium-, and low-sheet probability area), visually
confirming normality. Figs. 4 and 5 show SPI maps (a,
$$$\lambda=0.008$$$) for two different slices, continuous areas of high (red) and low (blue) $$$P_\lambda$$$ (b),
and pathways that run through these high SPI areas (c and d).
Discussion and Conclusion
The proposed SPI measure is based
on the previously investigated Lie bracket, and is designed as a robust and
quantitative estimate of the local structure as illustrated in Fig. 2. Though
the method ideally requires several independent samples of the normal component
of the Lie bracket, Fig. 2 shows that bootstrapping can be a viable alternative
in practice. Our first SPI maps of real data (Figs. 4 and 5) show that
tracts can be explored in sheet and non-sheet areas in a guided and interactive
way.
Acknowledgements
Authors C.T. and T.D. contributed equally to this work.
The authors thank Maxime Chamberland for help with figure generation using the FiberNavigator. C.T. is supported by a grant (No. 612.001.104) from the Physical
Sciences division of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research (NWO). The research of A.L. is supported by VIDI Grant
639.072.411 from NWO. T.D. gratefully acknowledges NWO (No 617.001.202)
for financial support. The
authors acknowledge the NIH grants R01MH074794, P41EB015902,
P41EB015898.
References
[1] Wedeen et al., Science 335: 1628-1634,
2012; [2] Catani et al., Science 337: 1605, 2012; [3] Wedeen et al., Science
337: 1605, 2012; [4] Tax et al., ISMRM
0975, 2014; [5] Tax et al., International BASP Frontiers Workshop 74, 2015; [6]
Ferizi et al., MRM 72(6): 1785-1792, 2014; [7] Van Essen et al. NeuroImage 80: 62-79, 2013; [8] Tournier et al., NeuroImage 35:
1459-1472, 2007; [9] Tax et al., NeuroImage 86: 67-80, 2014; [10] Jeurissen et
al., Hum Brain Mapp. 32(3):461-79, 2013;