Re: [Freesurfer] Question about hippocampal-subfield probability map

2012-02-15 Thread Koen Van Leemput
Hi Joshua,

The correct way to obtain binarized maps would be to visit each
voxel in turn, compute the probability that it belongs to each of the
subfieds, and pick the subfield with the highest such probability.

Having said that, it should not be the case that there are two or more
subfields with value  150 in any voxel. I'm representing
probabilities with numbers between 0 and 255 to save disk space, and
while this may introduce some rounding off errors, the sum over all
subfields should still sum to something around 255 (unless there is a
big bug in my code)...

Koen


On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Joshua Lee jki...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
 Dear experts,

 The hippocampal-subfield are expressed as probability maps. For each
 subfield, each voxel is assigned a probability of inclusion on a scale of
 [0-255]=[0-1]. However, If I were to select only voxels from each subfield's
 probability map corresponding to a 50% chance (i.e. mri_binarize -min 150),
 then I would expect that no subfield would overlap with another (i.e. a
 voxel shouldn't have greater than 50% probability of belonging CA1, AND a
 greater than 50% probability of belonging to CA4-DG. However it appears that
 this is not the case, and overlap does occur. Thus, unless I messed up,
 subfields are not mutually exclusive. Have I got this right? And if so, how
 do I obtain binary maps of subfields with no overlap?

 Thanks

 Josh

 ___
 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


[Freesurfer] Question about hippocampal-subfield probability map

2012-02-14 Thread Joshua Lee
Dear experts,

The hippocampal-subfield are expressed as probability maps. For each
subfield, each voxel is assigned a probability of inclusion on a scale of
[0-255]=[0-1]. However, If I were to select only voxels from each
subfield's probability map corresponding to a 50% chance (i.e.
mri_binarize -min 150), then I would expect that no subfield would overlap
with another (i.e. a voxel shouldn't have greater than 50% probability of
belonging CA1, AND a greater than 50% probability of belonging to CA4-DG.
However it appears that this is not the case, and overlap does occur. Thus,
unless I messed up, subfields are not mutually exclusive. Have I got this
right? And if so, how do I obtain binary maps of subfields with no overlap?

Thanks

Josh
___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Question about hippocampal-subfield probability map

2012-02-14 Thread Joshua Lee
Ha nevermind. While true, I can just mask the masks with each other and
drop the over lapped regions.
-
Josh


On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Joshua Lee jki...@ucdavis.edu wrote:

 Dear experts,

 The hippocampal-subfield are expressed as probability maps. For each
 subfield, each voxel is assigned a probability of inclusion on a scale of
 [0-255]=[0-1]. However, If I were to select only voxels from each
 subfield's probability map corresponding to a 50% chance (i.e.
 mri_binarize -min 150), then I would expect that no subfield would overlap
 with another (i.e. a voxel shouldn't have greater than 50% probability of
 belonging CA1, AND a greater than 50% probability of belonging to CA4-DG.
 However it appears that this is not the case, and overlap does occur. Thus,
 unless I messed up, subfields are not mutually exclusive. Have I got this
 right? And if so, how do I obtain binary maps of subfields with no overlap?

 Thanks

 Josh

___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Question about hippocampal-subfield probability map

2012-02-14 Thread Joshua Lee
That is, I can use fslmaths from fsl suite to subtract my binarized
subfield rois.
-
Josh


On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Joshua Lee jki...@ucdavis.edu wrote:

 Ha nevermind. While true, I can just mask the masks with each other and
 drop the over lapped regions.
 -
 Josh


 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Joshua Lee jki...@ucdavis.edu wrote:

 Dear experts,

 The hippocampal-subfield are expressed as probability maps. For each
 subfield, each voxel is assigned a probability of inclusion on a scale of
 [0-255]=[0-1]. However, If I were to select only voxels from each
 subfield's probability map corresponding to a 50% chance (i.e.
 mri_binarize -min 150), then I would expect that no subfield would overlap
 with another (i.e. a voxel shouldn't have greater than 50% probability of
 belonging CA1, AND a greater than 50% probability of belonging to CA4-DG.
 However it appears that this is not the case, and overlap does occur. Thus,
 unless I messed up, subfields are not mutually exclusive. Have I got this
 right? And if so, how do I obtain binary maps of subfields with no overlap?

 Thanks

 Josh



___
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.