is, MO 63110 Email: mha...@wustl.edu
>
> From: "Laura M. Tully"
> Date: Saturday, March 9, 2013 5:58 PM
> To: "Anderson M. Winkler"
> Cc: free
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] mean thickness covariate, mean area covariate,
> & mri_anatomical_stats for multip
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] mean thickness covariate, mean area covariate, &
mri_anatomical_stats for multiple subjects
Hi Anderson,
Thanks, that reference is particularly helpful.
Re: the usage of the white versus pial area question - I believe that the
default area calculation in freesurfer
Hi Laura,
I think yes, sounds right. Maybe run both ways and see if the results agree
or differ.
All the best,
Anderson
2013/3/9 Laura M. Tully
> Hi Anderson,
>
> Thanks, that reference is particularly helpful.
>
> Re: the usage of the white versus pial area question - I believe that the
> defa
Hi Anderson,
Thanks, that reference is particularly helpful.
Re: the usage of the white versus pial area question - I believe that the
default area calculation in freesurfer is the white surface area, so unless
one specifies the pial in calculations, the standard surface area output
for surface a
Hi Laura,
>1. Is there a paper that I could cite that recommends using mean
>cortical thickness rather than ICV?
>
>
If it helps, we used cortical thickness and area as covariate for the
respective analysis of regional thickness and area. Brain volume, which is
more closely related to ICV
Hello freesurfers,
It appears that prior discussions on the listserv have recommended using
mean cortical thickness (rather than ICV) as a covariate for thickness
analyses (predominantly recommended by Michael Harms). I have three
questions about this:
1. Is there a paper that I could cite th
