Aseg looks good, here's another example of what I'm finding. It's posterior midline (~PreCuneus area). Sometimes this happens on the outer cortical surfaces too. Thanks.
-Derin > not really sure. Does the aseg look good? We don't usually see that kind > of defect. > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Derin Cobia wrote: > >> Bruce, >> >> Are the things I'm noticing due to using 3.0.3 for everything (including >> topology fixer) up to final surfaces, then using 3.0.4? So I guess the >> other "odd" surfaces are acceptable to trust (excluding the medial temp >> lobe)? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Derin >> >>> Hi Derin, >>> >>> it's pretty much impossible to tell if surfaces are crossing from a 2d >>> slice. This looks like there was an incorrectly fixed topological >>> defect >>> in the hippocampus. You could manually correct it in the wm.mgz volume, >>> but we don't really care about the surfaces in this region (cerebral >>> cortex) >>> >>> cheers, >>> Bruce >>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Derin Cobia wrote: >>> >>>> I reran our subjects from "final_surfaces" on through autorecon3 using >>>> 3.0.4 to correct for the pial surface crossover at the midline (as >>>> recommended by Bruce). Most things look fine, except that there are >>>> many >>>> portions of the surfaces that appear to "bunch" together. In one >>>> extreme >>>> example it appears that the white and pial surface cross. I've >>>> attached >>>> some jpgs to demonstrate what I mean. The close-up is r medial >>>> temporal >>>> area, while the other shows the "bunching" in the l superior portion, >>>> and >>>> at the midline. I understand that the crossing is not correct, but do >>>> the >>>> other surfaces look appropriate? Thanks. >>>> >>>> -Derin >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
<<attachment: Conte_sub4.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
