Dear FreeSurfers,
Due to motion I have to exclude participants from my analysis.
Is there an objective measure which could serve as a cut off value concerning
motion in the scanner? Can I find it in one of the FreeSurfer files generated
through the recon-all process?
Subjectively, one can
Dear all,
Applications are invited for a PhD in the newly established ‘Brain and Language
Lab’ at the University of Geneva in Switzerland, under the supervision of Narly
Golestani. Projects will include using functional MRI (fMRI), structural MRI
(sMRI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and
Hi Hugh,
no attachments came through. Do you mean the segmentation of the
hippocampus in the aseg? What version are you running?
cheers
Bruce
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Hugh Pemberton wrote:
Dear freesurfer crew,
I'm having a few issues with segmentation around the hippocampus, I have
included a
Hello,
My input to freesurfer is:
mri_surf2surf
--cortex --fwhm-src 5 --noreshape --hemi rh --tval [$output file] --sval
[$input file] --srcsubject [$subject id] --trgsubject fsaverage --tfmt nii
When I reopen the resulting image with Nibabel, the dimensions are 27307
x 1 x 6 x 296. While 296
Hi Douglas,
I've tried your suggestion, but I don't succeed, first I look for all the
option of the command mris_anatomical_stats and I don't understand some of
them, like the last word white and the -cortex option.
If I finally succeed, where I can find the values? Can I visualize a
colored
Hello again,
I'm sorry about all these questions.
My analysis is being based on Morey et al. and I would like to know why do
they not divide the study in left hippocampus and right hippocampus? Is it
related with the type of comparison, once they are only worried about the
comparison between
Hi,
From the wiki (http://www.freesurfer.net/fswiki/mri_ms_fitparms), I
can see that mri_ms_fitparms can accept and afi map. Can someone tell
me what assumptions the -afi subcommand makes about the position of
the afi map relative to the flash volumes? does it calculate
everything in scanner
you need to register them.
cheers
Bruce
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, dgw wrote:
Hi,
From the wiki (http://www.freesurfer.net/fswiki/mri_ms_fitparms), I
can see that mri_ms_fitparms can accept and afi map. Can someone tell
me what assumptions the -afi subcommand makes about the position of
the afi
Sorry, it was the first command that failed. Run these two commands,
then the mris_anatomical_stats
mri_annotation2label --subject vol17 --hemi lh --lobesStrict lobesfile
mri_annotation2label --subject vol17 --hemi rh --lobesStrict lobesfile
On 10/10/2012 12:24 PM, Carolina Valencia wrote:
Hi
a have a bunch of data stored in the subj_id directories of the subjects for
convieniance but
it is already in the average surface space, but i want to assemble it into one
file so i can
run the glm.
mris_preproc --fsgd subset.fsgd --target subset_average --hemi lh --meas
winkler.mgh --out
Hi Greg, you can do something like
mri_concat --o lh.surf.mgh $SUBJECTS_DIR/*/surf/winkler.mgh
doug
On 10/10/2012 04:52 PM, Gregory Kirk wrote:
a have a bunch of data stored in the subj_id directories of the subjects for
convieniance but
it is already in the average surface space, but i
Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to
warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have
noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or
hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed,
Hi Eric
what version are you running?
Bruce
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to
warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have
noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes
Hi Bruce,
I am running version 5.10
Thanks,
-Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Eric
what version are you running?
Bruce
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm
I think 5.1 specifically has a problem with Talairach accuracy (is that
right Nick?). Should be much better with the next release
On Wed, 10 Oct
2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I am running version 5.10
Thanks,
-Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl
Thank you for your answer.
I'm not sure I understand your question right,
but I just processed the file using following procedures.
1. recon-all -autorecon1 -nuintensitycor-3T (because mine was 3T)
2. skullstripping brain mask using gcuts
3. adding control points (only on the left hemisphere)
4.
If you upload the subject to our FTP site I will take a look
Bruce
On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:29 PM, EK Kim kse...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your answer.
I'm not sure I understand your question right,
but I just processed the file using following procedures.
1. recon-all -autorecon1
Hi all,
Ah, good to know that there is a Talairach accuracy problem. What have
other groups been doing about this? Do you think it makes sense to
manually edit much of our data? From what we've seen so far (registering
to ages 3-9 so more errors expected) about 25% of our data have the
Hi all,
I have seen others post a similar problem on the freesurfer mailing list but I
could not find a solution.
When I edit a volume using control points, I am noticing that the use of CP
edits adversely effects the wm/gm surfaces in the resulting re-processed image.
Like others have
19 matches
Mail list logo
