Prior to normalization using the diffeomorphic DARTEL approach, the MRI data were segmented into different tissue classes. Image processing was done using SPM8 release 4010 (Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK) using the AA version 3.01 pipeline (
http://www.cambridgeneuroimaging.com/aawiki/). Each individual's structural image was first coregistered to an ICBM152-space (i.e., MNI-space) average template distributed with SPM8 using normalized mutual information. This ensured reasonable starting estimates for the unified segmentation routine, and was done as an alternative to manually repositioning each scan. Structural images were then segmented into tissue classes using unified segmentation (Ashburner and Friston, 2005 (
link)) as implemented in the “new segment” option of SPM8. This segmentation makes use of a number of tissue probability maps including GM, white matter (WM), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), soft tissue, skull, and non-brain regions of the image. These maps reflect the prior probability of a given voxel belonging to a tissue class based on a large sample of healthy adults across the lifespan (Good et al., 2001 (
link)). This information, in combination with the distribution of voxel intensities, is used to assign a probability to each voxel of belonging to a particular tissue class using Gaussian mixture modeling. Unless otherwise specified, default values were used for segmentation, except that the data were sampled every 1 mm (instead of the default 3 mm).
We also performed a second, parallel analysis using the alternative “standard” unified segmentation from SPM5/SPM8 (that has been used in many previous VBM studies). This segmentation uses fewer tissue classes (GM, WM, CSF), and tissue probability maps are based on a sample of young adults only (and hence potentially biased when examining age effects). Although not discussed at length in the main text, quite different effects of age were obtained from this “standard” segmentation analysis (shown in Supplemental Fig. S1–S3) relative to the “new” segmentation analysis reported in the main text.
Prior to segmentation, bias-corrected structural images were created to reduce the influence of intensity inhomogeneity on segmentation; producing a separate bias-corrected image effectively results in a two-pass bias correction, as bias correction is built-in to the segmentation process. Additionally, to reduce the likelihood that non-brain voxels were classified as GM, WM, or CSF, the tissue probability maps for these three tissue classes were set to 0 outside of a template-space brain mask.
3 Following segmentation, images for each tissue class were roughly registered in a common space using a rigid body transformation. Segmented images were written out at 1.5 mm isotropic resolution.
The volume of the resulting GM, WM, and CSF tissue classes was determined from the (unsmoothed, unregistered) segmented images by integrating over all voxels and multiplying by voxel size, and the volumes of these three classes were summed to provide an estimate of total intracranial volume (TIV).
Peelle J.E., Cusack R, & Henson R.N. (2012). Adjusting for global effects in voxel-based morphometry: Gray matter decline in normal aging. Neuroimage, 60(2), 1503-1516.