4.2 Article

Three-dimensional volumetric analysis and reconstruction of amygdala and hippocampal head, body and tail

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
Volume 155, Issue 2, Pages 155-165

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.11.011

Keywords

hippocampus; MRI; temporal lobe structures; limbic system; neuroanatomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Volumetric changes in the amygdala and hippocampus are relevant to many disorders, but their close proximity makes it difficult to separate these structures by magnetic resonance imaging, leading many volumetric protocols to exclude problematic slices from analysis, or to analyze the amygdalo-hippocampal complex conjointly. The hippocampus tail is also often excluded, because of the difficulty in separating it from the thalamus. We have developed a reliable protocol for volumetric analysis and 3-D reconstruction of the amygdala and hippocampus (as a whole and in its anatomical parts). Twenty volunteers from clinical and healthy populations were recruited. T1-weighted images were acquired at 1.5 Tesla with native spatial resolution of 1.5 mm x 1.0 mm x 1.0 mm. Volumetric analyses were performed blind to diagnosis, using the interactive software package DISPLAY Inter-rater (intrarater) intraclass correlations for the method were: 0.95 (0.88) for hippocampus tail, 0.83 (0.93) for hippocampus body, 0.95 (0.92) for hippocampus head, 0.96 (0.86) for total hippocampus and 0.86 (0.94) for amygdala. Volumes (mean +/- S.D.) corrected for intracranial volume for this mixed group were for the hippocampal tail: 0.325 +/- 0.087 cm(3); hippocampal body: 0.662 +/- 0.120 cm(3); hippocampal head: 1.23 +/- 0.174 cm(3); total hippocampus: 2.218 +/- 0.217 cm(3), and amygdala: 0.808 +/- 0.185 cm(3). In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the amygdala and hippocampal parts can be quantified reliably. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available