Hi Alessia
when you say "the image was rotated" do you mean you actually transformed
the image, or you simply changed the image header to reflect a new
orientation? I wouldn't think the latter would have a big effect, but the
former will involve an additional image interpolation (blurring) and will
definitely change things. Same question for 3. Did you include an extra
interpolation?
cheers
Bruce
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Alessia
Giuliano wrote:
Dear FreeSurefer team,
in order to verify the reliability of the volumes of Corpus Callosum (CC)
subregions estimated by FreeSurfer
I have applied the recon-all on the same subject but in three different
situations:
1. when the image was not preliminarly rotated;
2. when an initial soft rotation was manually performed with SPM;
3. when an initial rigid coregistration in MNI space was performed with SPM.
Although the differences in image orientation between 1, 2 and 3 before the
implementation of FreeSurfer
were really small, the differences in the volumes of the CC subregions between
1, 2 and 3 are notable.
How can I base on this evident variability my volumetric analysis of CC
subregions?
Do you have any suggestions to improve my approach to the CC segmentation?
In order to make my results clear, I attach you a recapitulatory page and I
send you a link to the
FreeSurfer output in 1, 2 and 3
(https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k1z5o0e6sq90qq0/AABx38QxKvxDhUe2lV9imaa9a).
Thank you,
Alessia Giuliano
_______________________________________________
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.
