Hi,
I'm trying to compare analyses that I've done entirely on the surface to
analyses I've done in the volume. I'm comparing the analyses by projecting
the volume analyses to the surface (HCP's 32k_fs_LR).
The commands I'm using are:
mri_vol2surf --mov $niftiFile --mni152reg --hemi ${hemi} --pro
The --mni152reg flag is only appropriate if the mov file is in the 2mm
mni152 space. The inclusion of fsaverage as the source subject indicates
some ambiguity about this
On 4/3/17 1:56 PM, Rita Elena Loiotile wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to compare analyses that I've done entirely on the surface
t
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the email. It is in 3mm space, so I guess I should reslice.
Can you please clarify the comment about fsaverage? Does the --mni152reg
flag not apply to that subject? I'm not sure what you mean about the
inclusion indicating ambiguity.
Thanks again,
Rita
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017
If you have a 3mm MNI152 space, then you should run bbregister to
fsaverage to create a new register.dat file. Alternatively, you can
register it directly to 32k_fs_LR and cut out the middle man (make sure
to use --9 to account for scaling). Please ignore my comment about
fsaverage. In that cas
Hi,
I just noticed that when I open my volume file in tksurfer using --overlay
it gives a better volume to surface mapping than when I do mri_vol2surf.
Do you know what .dat file is used implicitly when tksurfer is called with
a volume overlay? It also seems to work well when the subject is fsave
should be the same as when you use --regheader with tkregister
On 02/09/2018 11:24 PM, Rita Elena Loiotile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed that when I open my volume file in tksurfer using
> --overlay it gives a better volume to surface mapping than when I do
> mri_vol2surf. Do you know what .d
