Brain templates and atlases

Evans, Alan C.; Janke, Andrew L.; Collins, D. Louis; Baillet, Sylvain

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.024

Cited by 546 publications

(447 citation statements)

References 174 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

442

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These models emphasize that neuroimaging approaches can be done on a larger scale and across research teams. However, these studies also highlight many of the current methodological challenges to going big with neuroimaging studies (68,75,78) (85,86), and statistical approaches for issues such as multiple comparisons (68). Understanding the extent to which different laboratories, scanners, and methods can reliably collect data (80) is also vital to population-based studies because most large studies rely on cluster sampling, which is conducive to using multiple laboratories for imaging.…”

Section: Integrative Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science

Falk

Hyde

Mitchell³

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

231

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last decades of neuroscience research have produced immense progress in the methods available to understand brain structure and function. Social, cognitive, clinical, affective, economic, communication, and developmental neurosciences have begun to map the relationships between neuro-psychological processes and behavioral outcomes, yielding a new understanding of human behavior and promising interventions. However, a limitation of this fast moving research is that most findings are based on small samples of convenience. Furthermore, our understanding of individual differences may be distorted by unrepresentative samples, undermining findings regarding brain-behavior mechanisms. These limitations are issues that social demographers, epidemiologists, and other population scientists have tackled, with solutions that can be applied to neuroscience. By contrast, nearly all social science disciplines, including social demography, sociology, political science, economics, communication science, and psychology, make assumptions about processes that involve the brain, but have incorporated neural measures to differing, and often limited, degrees; many still treat the brain as a black box. In this article, we describe and promote a perspective-population neuroscience-that leverages interdisciplinary expertise to (i) emphasize the importance of sampling to more clearly define the relevant populations and sampling strategies needed when using neuroscience methods to address such questions; and (ii) deepen understanding of mechanisms within population science by providing insight regarding underlying neural mechanisms. Doing so will increase our confidence in the generalizability of the findings. We provide examples to illustrate the population neuroscience approach for specific types of research questions and discuss the potential for theoretical and applied advances from this approach across areas.neuroimaging | life course | statistics | survey methodology | physics Why Population Neuroscience? How do biology, social situations, and the broader environmental context interact to guide behavior, health, and development? This question is fundamental to most, if not all, social and behavioral sciences. We argue that to effectively address the many topics that stem from this larger question across disciplines, it is necessary to (i) bring a "population perspective" to neuroscience and (ii) leverage neuroscience tools within population sciences, which are subdisciplines of many fields, areas, and departments focused on documenting and understanding the dynamics of human populations, including outcomes such as health, well-being, behavior, etc.

show abstract

Section: Integrative Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science

Falk

Hyde

Mitchell³

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

231

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To this end, the positive correlations observed between SCT-derived MR imaging metrics of GM pathology and clinical outcome validate this approach. Although atlas-based analysis techniques have been applied to a variety of brain pathologies, 23,24 this is the first study to implement an atlasbased approach for study of WM-and GM-specific pathology in the SC. Patients with AFM occurring in association with a recent EV-D68 outbreak were studied because this type of myelopathy distinctively targets central GM, primarily the anterior horn cells.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MRI Atlas-Based Measurement of Spinal Cord Injury Predicts Outcome in Acute Flaccid Myelitis

McCoy

Talbott

Wilson

et al. 2016

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Recent advances in spinal cord imaging analysis have led to the development of a robust anatomic template and atlas incorporated into an open-source platform referred to as the Spinal Cord Toolbox. Using the Spinal Cord Toolbox, we sought to correlate measures of GM, WM, and cross-sectional area pathology on T2 MR imaging with motor disability in patients with acute flaccid myelitis.

show abstract

“…Thus approaches including population specific templates (Lee et al, 2005;Sanchez et al, 2012;Wilke et al, 2002Wilke et al, , 2003aWilke et al, , 2003bZhang et al, 2014) study-specific templates, or subject matched templates (Rohlfing et al, 2009) have been suggested instead (Huang et al, 2010;Padilla et al, 2011). However, these might prevent generalization of results across studies, and the need for such approaches has also been questioned given that depending on the resolution and population this may not pose a big problem (Burgund et al, 2002;Kang et al, 2003) and many standard templates may contain enough variability to cause concern (For review, see Evans et al (2012) and Mandal et al (2012)). Normalization to an adult template may be the most problematic when comparing children and adults, as the difference in head size may confound the group difference (Fonov et al, 2011).…”

Section: Motion Correction During Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%