[Freesurfer] surface-based morphometry registration

2014-05-21 Thread Tudor Popescu
Hi all,

If I understand correctly, the surface-based morphometry (SBM) done by
Freesurfer offers superior registration as compared to voxel-based methods
such as VBM, in that:
1. SBM smoothing respects anatomical boundaries better than the 3D VBM
smoothing.
2.  SBM group analysis employs inter-subject alignment based on the
patterns of sulci and gyri, as opposed to Talairach registration, which
often ignores sulcal/gyral landmarks

I'm not sure I understand those reasons, however. For 1., why does the
smoothing operation (basically, a multiplication) care about anatomy or
registration at all, such that it can be said it is better done in SBM vs
VBM?
And for 2., doesn't the Talairach registration used in VBM simply imply a
certain target template? Surely such a template is used in SBM registration
as well, and if that is the case, then how are sulcal/gyral landmarks taken
into account?

Thanks for any help!

Tudor
___
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] surface-based morphometry registration

2014-05-21 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi Tudor

1. The smoothing we do is along the surface, so no matter how huge the 
kernel gets it only ever includes cortical gray matter. In contrast, volume 
smoothing kernels will happily smooth in white matter, skull, csf, the bore 
of the scanner, etc as the kernels get big.


2. Yes, we have a template, but it is a geometric one and not simply an 
average, so part of the advantage is higher dimensional nonlinear warping 
(which also exists in the volume), but part is that we register based on 
cortical folding patterns not image intensities, so folds are much more 
likely to align across subjects (and architectonic areas as well)


cheers
Bruce


On Wed, 21 May 2014, Tudor 
Popescu wrote:



Hi all,

If I understand correctly, the surface-based morphometry (SBM) done by
Freesurfer offers superior registration as compared to voxel-based methods
such as VBM, in that:
1. SBM smoothing respects anatomical boundaries better than the 3D VBM
smoothing.
2.  SBM group analysis employs inter-subject alignment based on the
patterns of sulci and gyri, as opposed to Talairach registration, which
often ignores sulcal/gyral landmarks

I'm not sure I understand those reasons, however. For 1., why does the
smoothing operation (basically, a multiplication) care about anatomy or
registration at all, such that it can be said it is better done in SBM vs
VBM?
And for 2., doesn't the Talairach registration used in VBM simply imply a
certain target template? Surely such a template is used in SBM registration
as well, and if that is the case, then how are sulcal/gyral landmarks taken
into account?

Thanks for any help!

Tudor

___
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] surface-based morphometry registration

2014-05-21 Thread Tudor Popescu
Thanks very much for explaining this Bruce.
Tudor


On 21 May 2014 22:01, Bruce Fischl fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:

 Hi Tudor

 1. The smoothing we do is along the surface, so no matter how huge the
 kernel gets it only ever includes cortical gray matter. In contrast, volume
 smoothing kernels will happily smooth in white matter, skull, csf, the bore
 of the scanner, etc as the kernels get big.

 2. Yes, we have a template, but it is a geometric one and not simply an
 average, so part of the advantage is higher dimensional nonlinear warping
 (which also exists in the volume), but part is that we register based on
 cortical folding patterns not image intensities, so folds are much more
 likely to align across subjects (and architectonic areas as well)

 cheers
 Bruce



 On Wed, 21 May 2014, Tudor Popescu wrote:

  Hi all,

 If I understand correctly, the surface-based morphometry (SBM) done by
 Freesurfer offers superior registration as compared to voxel-based methods
 such as VBM, in that:
 1. SBM smoothing respects anatomical boundaries better than the 3D VBM
 smoothing.
 2.  SBM group analysis employs inter-subject alignment based on the
 patterns of sulci and gyri, as opposed to Talairach registration, which
 often ignores sulcal/gyral landmarks

 I'm not sure I understand those reasons, however. For 1., why does the
 smoothing operation (basically, a multiplication) care about anatomy or
 registration at all, such that it can be said it is better done in SBM vs
 VBM?
 And for 2., doesn't the Talairach registration used in VBM simply imply a
 certain target template? Surely such a template is used in SBM
 registration
 as well, and if that is the case, then how are sulcal/gyral landmarks
 taken
 into account?

 Thanks for any help!

 Tudor


 ___
 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


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.