Right we will recommend using the areal classifier to find these areas rather than the group parcellation once the areal classifier is available.
Peace, Matt. From: <hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users-boun...@humanconnectome.org>> on behalf of Timothy Coalson <tsc...@mst.edu<mailto:tsc...@mst.edu>> Date: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 4:36 PM To: Romuald Janik <romuald.ja...@gmail.com<mailto:romuald.ja...@gmail.com>> Cc: "hcp-users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users@humanconnectome.org>" <hcp-users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:hcp-users@humanconnectome.org>> Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] Surfaces, coordinates and beginner questions This is not something that QC can catch, it requires extensive processing to discover this. The individual subject parcellations that are generated during the MMP 1.0 process do reflect these differences, so these will be able to be used instead of the group label map when using HCP data. I believe these issues affect relatively few areas and are somewhat rare, for instance 55b (and therefore also some of its neighbors) is one of the most affected areas, however 89% of subjects had the typical pattern for 55b. See "Individuals with atypical areal patterns" supplemental information in the MMP paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27437579 Tim On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Romuald Janik <romuald.ja...@gmail.com<mailto:romuald.ja...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for the detailed explanations! I have just one follow up question regarding this point: On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Timothy Coalson <tsc...@mst.edu<mailto:tsc...@mst.edu>> wrote: Some techniques like hyperalignment use this "correspondence" concept aggressively, and allow you to have discontinuities (this area is on the "wrong" side of this other area in this subject - we have evidence that some subjects do actually have areas shifted or split), however MSMAll doesn't allow this (the constraints it imposes to prevent this make the problem easier to solve, and possibly more robust to noise). When we talk about "spherical distortion", we are talking about artifacts of this "correspondence-finding" process, there is still no anatomical distortion caused to individual data. Such splitting or shifting of areas would make comparisons with other subjects (like averaging statistics etc.) in principle problematic - also using the MMP1.0 parcellation for these subjects would be wrong for these areas. Are these subjects indicated in some way? (like having the QC_Issue codes A or B? or these problems are more subtle?) Once again many thanks, Romuald _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org> http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
