Hi Lars,
definitely trust your eyes more than the objective function! If the xforms
are reasonable everything should work fine, but if you care about talairach
averaging or coords for reporting you should adjust them.
cheers,
Bruce
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Lars M. Rimol wrote:
Hi,
We have 15 out of 16 data sets with Final Objective Function value 0.1. We
also find some deviations from the talairach (or MNI) volume when we
visually inspect the images (fixed vs. movable) in tkregister2. But we are
unsure how large the deviations must be for it to be a problem, so we rely
on the Final Objective Function value. When it comes to the intensity
normalization, that's even harder to inspect visually, so we don't really
know how to check that (unless there are really huge effects). But when we
use the brain.mgz image as input for the talairach, the Final Objective
Value improves, that's why we've started using that. So we need to know how
to proceed from there.
(We use the "recommended reconstruction," so we check the talairach and
skullstrip after autorecon1.)
Thanks!
--
yours,
Lars M. Rimol
depends why you needed to improve the talairach. If it's just for
reporting purposes and the filling/intensity normalization all worked
fine then you don't need to.
cheers,
Bruce
Hi,
After having redone mri_convert with an edited brain.mgz as input file,
in
order to improve the talairach transform, and after having changed the
file
names (brain.xfm -> talairach.xfm), should we then go to autorecon2? (or
do
we need to re-run some more scripts from autorecon1?)
--
yours,
Lars M. Rimol
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
