I'm using the Version 20060418 that should be the last one right? Valentina
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:13 AM To: Durastanti, Valentina (NIH/NINDS) [F] Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: RE: regional cortical thickness usually we mask them out so they are zero. What version are you using? In the most recent versions they shouldn't be an effect there, but it's something we fixed relatively recently. On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Durastanti, Valentina (NIH/NINDS) [F] wrote: > Ok, but can you explain me why it marks those regions? Just to know > because I need to explain the meaning of this results and I really don't > know how! > thanks > Valentina > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:50 AM > To: Durastanti, Valentina (NIH/NINDS) [F] > Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: regional cortical thickness > > Hi Valentina, > > you should ignore the noncortical regions like this one. The thickness > maps are meaningless there. > > cheers, > Bruce > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Durastanti, Valentina > (NIH/NINDS) [F] wrote: > >> Hi, >> I used the statistical parametric map provided by Freesurfer to > evaluate >> the differences in mean cortical thickness and the software marked an >> area (in red) located under the corpus callosum, in a region the does >> not correspond to any of the 34 regions of the atlas (unlabeled >> sub-cortical region). How I have to interpreter this result? >> thanks >> Valentina >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
