Abstract
Objective:
Identification of point correspondences between shapes is required for statistical analysis of organ shapes differences. Since manual identification of landmarks is not a feasible option in 3D, several methods were developed to automatically find one-to-one correspondences on shape surfaces. For unstructured point sets, however, one-to-one correspondences do not exist but correspondence probabilities can be determined.
Materials and methods:
A method was developed to compute a statistical shape model based on shapes which are represented by unstructured point sets with arbitrary point numbers. A fundamental problem when computing statistical shape models is the determination of correspondences between the points of the shape observations of the training data set. In the absence of landmarks, exact correspondences can only be determined between continuous surfaces, not between unstructured point sets. To overcome this problem, we introduce correspondence probabilities instead of exact correspondences. The correspondence probabilities are found by aligning the observation shapes with the affine expectation maximization-iterative closest points (EM-ICP) registration algorithm. In a second step, the correspondence probabilities are used as input to compute a mean shape (represented once again by an unstructured point set). Both steps are unified in a single optimization criterion which depe nds on the two parameters ‘registration transformation’ and ‘mean shape’. In a last step, a variability model which best represents the variability in the training data set is computed. Experiments on synthetic data sets and in vivo brain structure data sets (MRI) are then designed to evaluate the performance of our algorithm.
Results:
The new method was applied to brain MRI data sets, and the estimated point correspondences were compared to a statistical shape model built on exact correspondences. Based on established measures of “generalization ability” and “specificity”, the estimates were very satisfactory.
Conclusion:
The novel algorithm for building a generative statistical shape model (gSSM) does not need one-to-one point correspondences but relies solely on point correspondence probabilities for the computation of mean shape and eigenmodes. It is well-suited for shape analysis on unstructured point sets.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lorenz C and Krahnstoever N (2000). Generation of point-based 3D statistical shape models for anatomical objects. Comput Vis Image Understanding 77: 175–191
Bookstein FL (1996). Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics in group differences in outline shapes. Medi Image Anal 1: 225–243
Styner M, Gerig G, Lieberman J, Jones D and Weinberger D (2003). Statistical shape analysis of neuroanatomical structures based on medial models. Medi Image Anal 7: 207–220
Vos F, de Bruin P, Streeksa G, Maas M, van Vliet L, Vossepoel A (2004) A statistical shape model without using landmarks. In: Proceedings of the ICPR’04, vol 3, pp 714–717
Besl PJ and McKay ND (1992). A method for registration of 3D shapes. IEEE Trans PAMI 14: 239–256
Zhao Z, Theo EK (2005) A novel framework for automated 3D PDM construction using deformable models. In: Medical imaging 2005, SPIE proc, vol 5747, pp 303–314
Chui H, Win L, Schultz R, Duncan J and Rangarajan A (2003). A unified non-rigid feature registration method for brain mapping. Medi Image Anal 7: 113–130
Davies R, Twining C and Cootes T (2002). A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modeling. IEEE Trans Medi Imaging 21(5): 525–537
Heimann T, Wolf I, Williams T, Meinzer H (2005) 3D active shape models using gradient descent optimization of description length. In: Proceedings of the IPMI’05, vol 3565, pp 566–577
Cates J, Meyer M, Fletcher P, Whitaker R (2006) Entropy-based particle systems for shape correspondences. In: Proceedings of the MICCAI’06, vol 1, pp 90–99
Tsai A, Wells WM, Warfield SK and Willsky AS (2005). An EM algorithm for shape classification based on level sets. Medi Image Anal 9: 491–502
Kodipaka S, Vemuri B, Rangarajan A, Leonard C, Schmallfuss I and Eisenschenk S (2007). Kernel fisher discriminant for shape-based classification in epilepsy. Medi Image Anal 11: 79–90
Peter A, Rangarajan A (2006) Shape analysis using the Fisher-Rao Riemannian metric: unifying shape representation and deformation. In: IEEE transactions ISBI’06, pp 1164–1167
Chui H, Rangarajan A, Zhang J and Leonard C (2004). Unsupervised learning of an atlas from unlabeled point-sets. IEEE Trans PAMI’ 04(26): 160–172
Granger S, Pennec X (2002) Multi-scale EM-ICP: a fast and robust approach for surface registration. In: Proceedings of the ECCV’02, LNCS, vol 2525, pp 418–432
Rangarajan A, Chui H, Bookstein FL (1997) The softassign procrustes matching algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IPMI’97, vol 1230, pp 29–42
Dempster A, Laird N and Rubin D (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Royal Stat B 39: 1–38
Granger S (2003) Une approche statistique multi-échelle au recalage rigide de surfaces: application à l’implantologie dentaire. PhD thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris
Cootes T, Taylor C, Cooper D and Graham J (1995). Active shape models—their training and application. Comput Vis Image Understanding 61: 38–59
Schroeder WJ, Zarge JA and Lorensen WE (1992). Decimation of triangle meshes. Comput Graph 26: 65–70
Styner M, Rajamani K, Nolte L, Zsemlye G, Székely G, Taylor C, Davies R (2003) Evaluation of 3D correspondence methods for model building. In: Proceedings for the IPMI’03, vol 2732, pp 63–75
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hufnagel, H., Pennec, X., Ehrhardt, J. et al. Generation of a statistical shape model with probabilistic point correspondences and the expectation maximization- iterative closest point algorithm. Int J CARS 2, 265–273 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-007-0138-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-007-0138-9