Greetings,

In our lab, we have been registering brain images for about one year. We follow the published protocols, but still there is natural variation in the quality of results from one attempt to the next.

Usually, we are able to identify accurately ahead of time whether a brain's registration will succeed. If the brain is damaged or rotated, or if the image contains excessive noise, or is very dim, then the registration fails, as expected.

However, sometimes a brain image of relatively poor quality yields a good result, and other times, a brain that seems of reasonable quality fails the registration. For brevity, perhaps one could call them "US" and "UF" for short (unlikely success or failure), and UFs interest me the most because they suggest there are problems with some of our images that we are overlooking.

Based on your experience, which characteristics of the image might be the most important to determine the outcome of the registration?

To help clarify my remarks above, I attached three images: one US, and two UFs. Looking at these, my first thought is that the UFs might not include enough blank slices at the start of the stack before the antenna lobes begin, but I am not sure. I would be curious to hear your opinions and viewpoints, and many thanks.

Update: as the original stacks are too large to include in the post, I am including projections instead. Please let me know if you would prefer to see the stacks, and I will send them to you privately (e.g., via email).