Posting one of the brains. https://yalesurvey.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_ddwW7I9yMQuCtPn
It seems to me that neither version is perfect; however, 5.2.0 is capturing more "black spaces" in the region I'm looking at. It's in the right hemisphere, TAL coordinate about ~ (44, -46, 20). Given that the correlation between 5.1.0 and 5.2.0 is r = .33 in the region I examined with my samples, it's not a systematic "predictable" bias. Any solution? -- Yung-Jui "Daniel" Yang, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher Yale Child Study Center New Haven, CT (203) 737-5454 On 3/18/13 6:27 PM, "Matt Glasser" <m...@ma-tea.com> wrote: >Do the surfaces look correct in these regions? You might post some >screenshots of subjects who have a big difference between 5.1 and 5.2 with >the 5.1 and 5.2 white and pial surfaces on volume slices that highlight >the difference. Without this kind of info, its hard to know which was >more correct, 5.1 or 5.2. > >Peace, > >Matt. > >On 3/18/13 5:13 PM, "Ritobrato Datta" <rida...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote: > >>I concur. I have seen similar results in primary visual cortex from ~40 >>subjects. While fs 5.1 estimated mean thickness in the range of 1.5 to >>1.9 in V1, fs 5.2 is giving me V1 thickness in the range of 2 to 2.3. >> >>Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. >>Post Doctoral Researcher >>Department of Neurology >>University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine >>3rd Floor, Room 312 >>3710 Hamilton Walk (Goddard Laboratories) >>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6241 >>email - rida...@mail.med.upenn.edu >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Daniel Yang <yung-jui.y...@yale.edu> >>To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>Sent: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:44:44 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: [Freesurfer] Very different results between 5.1.0 and 5.2.0 >> >>Dear FreeSurfer Experts, >> >>I ran FreeSurfer 5.1.0 and FreeSurfer 5.2.0 on identical set of 161 >>subjects, and I'm interested in rh_superior_temporal_sulcus_thickness in >>particular. >> >>Previously, the mean thickness is 2.24 mm in 5.1.0; now it is 3.28 mm in >>5.2.0. They are significantly different, t(160) = 56.71. >> >>The correlation between the two versions is r = .33 >> >>Is this something possible?? I can't see what went wrong in my >>procedures. >> >>Thanks! >>Daniel >> >>-- >>Yung-Jui "Daniel" Yang, PhD >>Postdoctoral Researcher >>Yale Child Study Center >>New Haven, CT >>(203) 737-5454 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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
