PDF version of this document

Publicity

Some preparation and work on paper submission was considered at an early stage with the aim of obtaining feedback at the least. Furthermore, there was a slim chance of finding a place for the useful concepts and methods to be recognised and accepted as valid. There was not a high probability of acceptance because all results at the time were poor and the text reflected on this. The results did not support the premise of the proposed methods of image registration. The work was still performed in 1-D over synthetic data, making its impact futile and the experiments uninteresting.

In Late February a paper was submitted to Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) 2004. It was cautiously recommended for acceptance by only one of the three reviewers. The feedback suggested that Guimond et al. [] had performed similar experiments, but the paper suggested otherwise. It did not appear as if any groups used models and minimum description to guide registration - neither explicitly nor implicitly. Another main unavoidable flaw was the results being available for a 1-D case only; no practical medical results were displayed nor discussed (and illustration of either one is usually expected by the MICCAI community).

A poster presentation in the EPSRC summer school in Surrey (Figure ) attracted a great deal of attention from both the organisers and the attendees. It appeared to be a close contender for the best poster prize.

Figure: Down-sized poster.