Comparison of the disparity between Talairach and MNI coordinates in functional neuroimaging data: Validation of the Lancaster transform

By Angela R. Laird, Jennifer L. Robinson, Kathryn M. McMillan, Diana Tordesillas-Gutierrez, Sarah T. Moran, Sabina M. Gonzales, Kimberly L. Ray, Crystal Franklin, David C. Glahn, Peter T. Fox and 1 more. 2010

353 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Spatial normalization of neuroimaging data is a standard step when assessing group effects. As a result of divergent analysis procedures due to different normalization algorithms or templates, not all published coordinates refer to the same neuroanatomical region. Specifically, the literature is populated with results in the form of MNI or Talairach coordinates, and their disparity can impede the comparison of results across different studies. This becomes particularly problematic in coordinate-based meta-analyses, wherein coordinate disparity should be corrected to reduce error and facilitate literature reviews. In this study, a quantitative comparison was performed on two corrections, the Brett transform (i.e., “mni2tal”), and the Lancaster transform (i.e., “icbm2tal”). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data acquired during a standard paired associates task indicated that the disparity between MNI and Talairach coordinates was better reduced via the Lancaster transform, as compared to the Brett transform. In addition, an activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis of the paired associates literature revealed that a higher degree of concordance was obtained when using the Lancaster transform in the form of fewer, smaller, and more intense clusters. Based on these results, we recommend that the Lancaster transform be adopted as the community standard for reducing disparity between results reported as MNI or Talairach coordinates, and suggest that future spatial normalization strategies be designed to minimize this variability in the literature.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

Citations in the corpus

Cognitive relevance of the community structure of the human brain functional coactivation network (2013, methodology): “Each activation from each contrast was modeled as a 1-cm(3) sphere centered around its reported coordinates (15) in a standard stereotactic space (42, 43).”
Meta-analytic evidence for a superordinate cognitive control network subserving diverse executive functions (2012, methodology): “Coordinates originally published in MNI space were converted to Talairach space using the Lancaster (icbm2tal) transformation (Laird et al., 2010; Lancaster et al., 2007).”
Individual Variability in Functional Connectivity Architecture of the Human Brain (2013, methodology): “studies that reported coordinates in Talairach space (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988), used SPM or FSL, and did not specify the use of Lancaster transformation (Laird et al., 2010), conversion to MNI coordinates was performed using”
Building a Science of Individual Differences from fMRI. (2016, neutral): “The most widely used common space [18] is the MNI152 atlas, to which subjects’ brains are anatomically warped via a volumetric transform ([19] for review).”
Behavioral Interpretations of Intrinsic Connectivity Networks (2011, methodology): “In the present study, coordinates were analyzed in Talairach space; conversions between spaces were carried out using the Lancaster transform (Laird et al., 2010; Lancaster et al., 2007).”
neuromaps: structural and functional interpretation of brain maps (2022, methodology): “Although there are numerous methods for transforming data between coordinate systems, high-quality mappings for group-averaged data are limited [42, 43, 90].”
The BrainMap strategy for standardization, sharing, and meta-analysis of neuroimaging data (2011, methodology): “has been shown to provide improved fit as compared to the earlier mni2tal transform [22], and improve the accuracy of coordinate-based meta-analyses [23].”
A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain (2013, methodology): “Only publications reporting whole-brain analyses in standard reference space (Talairach/Tournoux, MNI) were included (coordinates reported in Talairach spacewere transformed intoMNI coordinates using the Lancaster transformation; Laird et al., 2010; Lancaster et al., 2007).”
Are the neural correlates of stopping and not going identical? Quantitative meta-analysis of two response inhibition tasks (2011, methodology): “A recent study demonstrated that the “Lancaster” transform was more accurate than the “Brett” transform in reducing the disparity between MNI and Talairach coordinates (Laird et al., 2010).”
Neural network of cognitive emotion regulation — An ALE meta-analysis and MACM analysis (2013, methodology): “Studies reported in Talairach space were converted to MNI using the implemented algorithm in GingerALE (Laird et al., 2009a, 2010; Lancaster et al., 2007).”