Re: [Freesurfer] how does the content of the curv files compare to that of smoothwm.H.crv

2016-11-28 Thread Bernardoni, Fabio
Dear Bruce,

thanks a lot for your answer. I am still a bit confused. I followed your 
suggestion to use msris_curvature to compute the curvature on the white surface 
(unsmoothed) instead of on smoothwm:

mris_curvature -w -a 10 $subj/surf/lh.white
mris_preproc -s $subj --target fsaverage --hemi lh --meas white.H --out 
./measures/lh.white.H.mgh
mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --s fsaverage --sval ./measures/lh.white.H.mgh --tval 
./measures/lh.white.H_sm10.mgh --fwhm-trg 10 --cortex --noreshape
(mri_surf2surf smoothing was applied also to other curvatures)

If I understood right, mris_curvature uses a hessian method to compute the 
curvature, while mris_curvature_stats uses the Gauss-Bonnet theorem (I 
extracted this information from your email to this mailing list from: Fri, 26 
Feb 2010 05:54:32 -0800). In an email from Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:40:58 -0700, 
Rudolph says that gauss-bonnet procedure is more robust against noise. Does 
this also hold for the mean/extrinsic curvature? I ask because in the 
Gauss-Bonnet theorem only the gaussian curvature is mentioned. For the 
extrinsic/mean curvature (see attachment) I obtain that actually the 
smoothwm.H.crv seems to be the noisiest quantity (red in the histogram), 
followed by the classical method applied on the unsmoothed white matter surface 
(blu) and by the classical method applied on the smoothed wm surface (green, 
corresponds to the ?h.curv files produced by recon-all). This observation also 
holds when comparing the curvature in ?h.curv.pial and ?h.pial.H.crv (histogram 
sent in my previous email). In that case, on many vertices the mean curvature 
computed with the gauss-Bonnet method was ~1/mm which makes me think to 
unrealistically small 'hollows' on the pial surface.

Finally, to compare curvature vertexwise between a group of patients and 
controls, which should be the right numerical quantity to look at:
1- curv.pial (classic method on smoothed pial surface - from recon-all)
2- pial.H (classic method on smoothed pial surface - from mris_curvature)
3- pial.H.crv (gauss-bonnet method on the pial surface - from 
mris_curvature_stats)?


Thank you very much for any help,

Fabio


Dr. Fabio Bernardoni
wiss. Mitarbeiter
Psychosoziale Medizin und Entwicklungsneurowissenschaften
Tel. +49 (0)351 458-5245
Fax +49 (0)351 458-7206
URL http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de/psm; www.transdenlab.de
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus & Medizinische Fakultät
an der Technischen Universität Dresden
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts des Freistaates Sachsen
Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden
http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de
Vorstand: Prof. Dr. med. D. M. Albrecht (Sprecher), Wilfried E. B. Winzer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Prof. Dr. med. Peter C. Scriba
USt.-IDNr.: DE 140 135 217, St.-Nr.: 203 145 03113
___
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] how does the content of the curv files compare to that of smoothwm.H.crv

2016-11-22 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi Fabio

I'll cc Rudolph who has worked with the curvature much more than I have, 
but some points:


1. The negative gyral/positive sulcal curvature is a consequence of 
adopting an outwards pointing surface normal direction.


2. I think the smoothwm.H.crv is generated from the ?h.smoothwm surface, 
while the ?h.curv is generated from the white. You could generate the 
equivalent for the white if you wanted.


3. We have 2 different ways of computing curvature. One fits a Hessian to 
the local height function in the tangent bundle (used in ?h.curv). The 
other is a discrete method, which I think is used in the smoothwm.H.crv, 
but Rudolph will know.


4. You can load the ?h.curv files in freeview or tksurfer and verify their 
appearance.


cheers
Bruce


On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Bernardoni, Fabio wrote:


Dear Freesurfer experts,

I am having troubles interpreting the output of the recon-all output concerning 
the curvature, in particular in relation with the one from the command 
mris_curvature_stats.
My aim is to compare the absolute value of both the gaussian/intrinsic and the mean/extrinsic curvatures between a group of patients and a group of controls. In particular  I would like to obtain a voxelwise statistical maps for the comparison. 


Browsing the freesurfer mailing list I understood the following (please correct 
me if I am wrong):
- the file $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.smoothwm.H.crv, produced by 
mris_curvature_stats, contains the mean/extrinsic curvature map for the left hemisphere, as 
computed on the white matter surface, for subject 
- the file $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.curv, produced by recon-all (or by mris_curvature, right?) contains a smoothed version of smoothwm.H.crv 
- the files $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.pial.H.crv and $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.curv.pial are the analogues of the above, but for the pial surface


Also the local gyrification index, contained in the file$SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.pial_lgi, is 
computed  on the pial surface and might be compared (I know it is a different measure) with 
$SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.pial.H.crv and $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.curv.pial, not with  
$SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.curv or $SUBJECTS_DIR//surf/lh.smoothwm.H.crv.

If this is true I expect that: 
1- the histograms of the above quantities for any subject be approximately symmetric around zero. Actually given that the convention chosen is to give a positive curvature to the suci and a negative to the gyri (also read in one email of this list from long time ago - so please correct me if I am wrong), I expect that the mean value would lie a bit below zero if we want the brain surface to close (with this convention a sphere has mean curvature -1/r). This expectation of mine is only a rough expectation, but it would be precise if one had normalized somehow for the area related to the vertex on which the local curvature is computed. 
2- the histograms for   smoothwm.H.crv and  pial.H.crv would have fatter tails than curv and curv.pial, respectively

3-  smoothwm.H.crv and  pial.H.crv would follow quite closely curv and 
curv.pial, respectively, for each subject

Now please have a look at the attached plots, where in red always appear 
unsmoothed quantities, while in blue smoothed ones. NB I have extracted the 
above plotted values using the functions fs_read_Y from the freesurfer  
longitudinal package by M. Reuter et al.

Now I observe that 1,2,3 are true on the white matter surface (see attached 
*smoothwm* files). Also, if I average the mean curvature for one subject over 
all vertices I obtain a negative value. When I look at the analogue plots for 
the pial surface2,3 are still true, but the mean values for the curvatures are 
now positive!
If I look at the  *pial* files, the distribution looks clearly different.

Therefore I have the following doubts/questions:
a) is the convention for the curvature sign different on the pial and on the wm 
surface?
b) if not, can the normalization issue I mention in point 1 above explain the  
negative mean of the mean-curvature I observe (the subject I used to produce 
the plots is a healthy control, plots are similar for other subjects)?
c) in any case I expected the survatures to be more similar to each other on 
the wm and on the pial surface, given that they are approximately parallel. Any 
comment on this would be highly appreciated.
d) or do you think my results are wrong/ I am not plotting the right thing?


Thanks in advance for any help. 


Fabio


Dr. Fabio Bernardoni
wiss. Mitarbeiter
Psychosoziale Medizin und Entwicklungsneurowissenschaften
Tel. +49 (0)351 458-5245
Fax +49 (0)351 458-7206
URL http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de/psm; www.transdenlab.de
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus & Medizinische Fakultät
an der Technischen Universität Dresden
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts des Freistaates Sachsen
Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden
http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de
Vorstand: Prof. Dr. med. D. M. Albrecht (Sprecher), Wilfried E. B. Winzer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichts