Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroinformatics. 2013 Jan;11(1):65–75. doi: 10.1007/s12021-012-9160-3

Table 1.

The effect of different volume obscuring methods on results of selected skull stripping and gain field correction methods for sixteen evaluated MR head volumes. Notations: NMI - normalized mutual information; APD - average pixel distance. Statistical test p values indicate probability that the null hypothesis (i.e. the method for this column is not statistically different from the normalized filtering) is true

Applied processing Similarity measure Localized blur
Fill coating
Normalized filtering
Mean Statistical test Mean Statistical test Mean
Original volume NMI between the original and masked volumes 0.075 paired t, p = 5e-8 0.074 paired t, p = 4e-8 0.076
APD between the original and masked volumes 11.1 paired t, p = 2e-6 14.3 paired t, p = 2e-8 9.2
Skull stripping Volume overlap between the skull-stripped original and masked volumes 99.2 % Wilcoxon signed rank, p = 4e-4 99.2 % Wilcoxon signed rank, p = 3e-3 99.4 %
MR gain field correction APD between the corrected original and masked volumes 0.42 Wilcoxon signed rank, p = 0.04 0.37 Wilcoxon signed rank, p = 0.09 0.33