Cory Jones1, Ting Liu2, Nathaniel Wood Cohan3, Mark Ellisman3, Tolga Tasdizen4. 1. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, United States; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, United States. 2. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, United States; School of Computing, University of Utah, United States. 3. National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, University of California, San Diego, United States. 4. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, United States; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, United States; School of Computing, University of Utah, United States. Electronic address: tolga@sci.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the area of connectomics, there is a significant gap between the time required for data acquisition and dense reconstruction of the neural processes contained in the same dataset. Automatic methods are able to eliminate this timing gap, but the state-of-the-art accuracy so far is insufficient for use without user corrections. If completed naively, this process of correction can be tedious and time consuming. NEW METHOD: We present a new semi-automatic method that can be used to perform 3D segmentation of neurites in EM image stacks. It utilizes an automatic method that creates a hierarchical structure for recommended merges of superpixels. The user is then guided through each predicted region to quickly identify errors and establish correct links. RESULTS: We tested our method on three datasets with both novice and expert users. Accuracy and timing were compared with published automatic, semi-automatic, and manual results. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Post-automatic correction methods have also been used in Mishchenko et al. (2010) and Haehn et al. (2014). These methods do not provide navigation or suggestions in the manner we present. Other semi-automatic methods require user input prior to the automatic segmentation such as Jeong et al. (2009) and Cardona et al. (2010) and are inherently different than our method. CONCLUSION: Using this method on the three datasets, novice users achieved accuracy exceeding state-of-the-art automatic results, and expert users achieved accuracy on par with full manual labeling but with a 70% time improvement when compared with other examples in publication.
BACKGROUND: In the area of connectomics, there is a significant gap between the time required for data acquisition and dense reconstruction of the neural processes contained in the same dataset. Automatic methods are able to eliminate this timing gap, but the state-of-the-art accuracy so far is insufficient for use without user corrections. If completed naively, this process of correction can be tedious and time consuming. NEW METHOD: We present a new semi-automatic method that can be used to perform 3D segmentation of neurites in EM image stacks. It utilizes an automatic method that creates a hierarchical structure for recommended merges of superpixels. The user is then guided through each predicted region to quickly identify errors and establish correct links. RESULTS: We tested our method on three datasets with both novice and expert users. Accuracy and timing were compared with published automatic, semi-automatic, and manual results. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Post-automatic correction methods have also been used in Mishchenko et al. (2010) and Haehn et al. (2014). These methods do not provide navigation or suggestions in the manner we present. Other semi-automatic methods require user input prior to the automatic segmentation such as Jeong et al. (2009) and Cardona et al. (2010) and are inherently different than our method. CONCLUSION: Using this method on the three datasets, novice users achieved accuracy exceeding state-of-the-art automatic results, and expert users achieved accuracy on par with full manual labeling but with a 70% time improvement when compared with other examples in publication.
Authors: Terry S Yoo; Michael J Ackerman; William E Lorensen; Will Schroeder; Vikram Chalana; Stephen Aylward; Dimitris Metaxas; Ross Whitaker Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2002
Authors: Yuriy Mishchenko; Tao Hu; Josef Spacek; John Mendenhall; Kristen M Harris; Dmitri B Chklovskii Journal: Neuron Date: 2010-09-23 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Daniel Haehn; Seymour Knowles-Barley; Mike Roberts; Johanna Beyer; Narayanan Kasthuri; Jeff W Lichtman; Hanspeter Pfister Journal: IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.579
Authors: Won-Ki Jeong; Johanna Beyer; Markus Hadwiger; Amelio Vazquez; Hanspeter Pfister; Ross T Whitaker Journal: IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.579
Authors: Albert Cardona; Stephan Saalfeld; Stephan Preibisch; Benjamin Schmid; Anchi Cheng; Jim Pulokas; Pavel Tomancak; Volker Hartenstein Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Ali Shahbazi; Jeffery Kinnison; Rafael Vescovi; Ming Du; Robert Hill; Maximilian Joesch; Marc Takeno; Hongkui Zeng; Nuno Maçarico da Costa; Jaime Grutzendler; Narayanan Kasthuri; Walter J Scheirer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.379