Hi,
I'm trying to compare analyses that I've done entirely on the surface to
analyses I've done in the volume. I'm comparing the analyses by projecting
the volume analyses to the surface (HCP's 32k_fs_LR).
The commands I'm using are:
mri_vol2surf --mov $niftiFile --mni152reg --hemi ${hemi} --projfrac-max 0 1
0.2 --o ${giftiFile}.$hemi.gii;
mri_surf2surf --srcsubject fsaverage --srcsurfval ${giftiFile}.$hemi.gii
--trgsubject 32k_fs_LR --trgsurfval ${giftiFile}.$hemi.gii --hemi ${hemi};
It seems that the FSL volumes look identical to the surface analysis, when
mapped. (Our surface analysis is mainly FSL-based, so this makes sense.)
The SPM mapping, however, looks very odd. It isn't just that the intensity
differs, but the localization of high intensity areas also varies. It seems
that everything is shifted a bit superior and, possibly, posterior to the
true location (as seen on the surface analysis).
I'm wondering if I'm doing anything obviously wrong in my command usage.
The brains were normalized to the MNI ICBM 152 template in SPM. I *think*
it's suitable to use the -mni152reg flag in the command.
I can attach pictures of the comparison if you'd like.
Thanks in advance,
Rita
_______________________________________________
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.
