Building connectomes using diffusion MRI: why, how and but

Why has diffusion MRI become a principal modality for mapping connectomes in vivo? How do different image acquisition parameters, fiber tracking algorithms and other methodological choices affect connectome estimation? What are the main factors that dictate the success and failure of connectome reconstruction? These are some of the key questions that we aim to address in this review. We provide an overview of the key methods that can be used to estimate the nodes and edges of macroscale connectomes, and we discuss open problems and inherent limitations. We argue that diffusion MRI-based connectome mapping methods are still in their infancy and caution against blind application of deep white matter tractography due to the challenges inherent to connectome reconstruction. We review a number of studies that provide evidence of useful microstructural and network properties that can be extracted in various independent and biologically-relevant contexts. Finally, we highlight some of the key deficiencies of current macroscale connectome mapping methodologies and motivate future developments

Evaluating Interaction Techniques for Stack Mode Viewing

Three interaction techniques were evaluated for scrolling stack mode displays of volumetric data. Two used a scroll-wheel mouse: one used only the wheel, while another used a “click and drag” technique for fast scrolling, leaving the wheel for fine adjustments. The third technique used a Shuttle Xpress jog wheel. In a within-subjects design, nine radiologists searched stacked images for simulated hyper-intense regions on brain, knee, and thigh MR studies. Dependent measures were speed, accuracy, navigation path, and user preference. The radiologists considered the task realistic. They had high inter-subject variability in completion times, far larger than the differences between techniques. Most radiologists (eight out of nine) preferred familiar mouse-based techniques. Most participants scanned the data in two passes, first locating anomalies, then scanning for omissions. Participants spent a mean 10.4 s/trial exploring anomalies, with only mild variation between participants. Their rates of forward navigation searching for anomalies varied much more. Interaction technique significantly affected forward navigation rate (scroll wheel 5.4 slices/s, click and drag 9.4, and jog wheel 6.9). It is not clear what constrained the slowest navigators. The fastest navigator used a unique strategy of moving quickly just beyond an anomaly, then backing up. Eight naïve students performed a similar protocol. Their times and variability were similar to the radiologists, but more (three out of eight) students preferred the jog wheel. It may be worthwhile to introduce techniques such as the jog wheel to radiologists during training, and several techniques might be provided on workstations, allowing individuals to choose their preferred method