Fig. 13.

Comparison of 14 different alignment methods of FA to MNI space. We used the same methodology as de Groot et al. (2013). For each registration method, we used its estimated warp field in autoPtx to transform 27 automatically defined tracts into standard space; as discussed in de Groot et al. (2013), judging cross-subject alignment through similarity of tracts can be considered a test of alignment success that is reasonably independent of the images and cost functions used to drive the alignments. Each box plot shows the average cross-correlation over the 27 tracts for the 4950 combinations of pairs of 100 subjects. Figs. S13–S16 the supplementary material show this same plot, at the tract level.

1: FA linearly aligned to T1 + T1 non-linearly aligned to MNI.

2: FA linearly aligned to T1 + T1’s WM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s WM.

3: FA linearly aligned to T1 + T1’s GM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s GM.

4: Corrected b = 0 linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1 non-linearly aligned to MNI.

5: Corrected b = 0 linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1’s WM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s WM.

6: Corrected b = 0 linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1’s GM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s GM.

7: FA non-linearly aligned to T1 + T1 non-linearly aligned to MNI.

8: FA non-linearly aligned to T1 + T1’s WM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s WM.

9: FA non-linearly aligned to T1 + T1’s GM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s GM.

10: FA linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1 non-linearly aligned to MNI.

11: FA linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1’s WM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s WM.

12: FA linearly aligned (BBR) to T1 + T1’s GM non-linearly aligned to MNI’s GM.

13: FA non-linearly aligned to FA FMRIB58 atlas via an FA study-specific template (created by aligning all the FAs to FA FMRIB58 and then averaging).

14: FA non-linearly aligned to FA FMRIB58 atlas using high-dimensional FNIRT-based warping.