External Email - Use Caution Hi Bruce, In that paper, you reported that MP2RAGE underestimates cortical thickness relative to MEMPRAGE and also has slightly lower reproducibility. Since Recon-all does not seem to have built in functionality to deal with the background noise in MP2RAGE, I am wondering whether you still recommend MEMPRAGE over MP2RAGE. I only have regular MPRAGE for comparison at the moment. Thank you, Caspar
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 19:56 Fischl, Bruce <bfis...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Caspar > > > > > > Can you elaborate? What are the issues? > > > > Bruce > > > > > > *From:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu < > freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > > *On Behalf Of *Caspar M. Schwiedrzik > > > *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2020 2:27 AM > > > *To:* Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > *Subject:* [Freesurfer] MEMPRAGE vs. MP2RAGE > > > > > > * External Email - Use Caution * > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > I was wondering whether the issues with surface reconstruction from > MP2RAGE data that were reported for Freesurfer v5.1 in Fujimoto et al., > 2014 still persist in more recent releases of Freesurfer, and whether there > is information to what > > extent they apply to 3T data? > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > Caspar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freesurfer mailing list > > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_mailman_listinfo_freesurfer&d=DwICAg&c=JeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg&r=sgvCAzCi3iTXkTNRRVMpDnC6tu0lnijYpKXIX_UNme8&m=xQ8Cowc6OmPjU8ym3EVysBmtoEVDE6H47AkCObdzVy8&s=cUIYIUPYlPPYzq9yUoARG1sjLpuraBvjMrsd31fx1g8&e=
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
