Hi Mike

it's a bit hard to state the region of effect for the control points. Essentially we go through and label voxels as control points or not based on their intensity, intensity gradient and connectivity (that is, the must be 6-connected to other control points) then build a Voronoi diagram and each control point sets the scaling for its Voronoi triangle. Thus if you have a control point surrounded by others its region of effect is small, but one control point all by itself can have a large region of effect.

Also, 5.1 applies the manually specified control points to the aseg normalization (norm.mgz), whereas older versions didn't. Not everyone is happy with this, so I think there is a backwards compatibility flag. Nick would know.

Bruce

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Sabin Khadka wrote:

Hi Michael,I had the same problem too. It might be because of the type of 
scanner you are using. I added -washu_mprage flag, it pretty
much helped me (I did not had to add a lot of controls points and so on so 
forth. You can go through the link below.

https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail//freesurfer/2009-August/011695.html 

Hope it helps.

-SK

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Michael Harms <mha...@conte.wustl.edu> wrote:

      Hi guys,

      We are currently trying to fix some errors in the white/pial surfaces
      where there are thin white matter strands by using control points, and
      are noticing a couple things:

      1) The resulting WM surface in the area of the CPs can end up too far
      into the GM instead.  Given that, is there any practical guidance for
      how to think about the surrounding spatial extent that is impacted by a
      given CP?  i.e., How do CP's actually get used within mri_normalize in
      an algorithmic sense?

      2) The surfaces are being impacted in places distant from the CPs.
      e.g., CP's placed in the left anterior temporal lobe are resulting in
      surface changes in the right anterior temporal lobe.  And when I
      difference the original norm.mgz vs. the one obtained after using CP's,
      I'm seeing an odd pattern of intensity differences which is clearly not
      limited to just the area of the CP's (which would be my expectation).

      This is version 5.1.

      thanks,
      -MH


      --
      Michael Harms, Ph.D.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
      Washington University School of Medicine
      Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
      Renard Hospital, Room 6604           Tel: 314-747-6173
      660 South Euclid Ave.                Fax: 314-747-2182
      St. Louis, MO 63110                  Email: mha...@wustl.edu
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      Freesurfer mailing list
      Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
      https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


      The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it 
is
      addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the 
e-mail
      contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance 
HelpLine at
      http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in 
error
      but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and 
properly
      dispose of the e-mail.



_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

Reply via email to