Hi Jenny,
the ?h.white is pretty much our final say one where the gray/white
boundary is, and is usually substantially more accurate than the wm.mgz.
Your dataset has a lot of motion artifact, but mostly looks okay except for
the superior temporal gyrus, which has been chopped. You'll need to edit
this back in. What version are you running? As for editing, an incorrect
white surface can lead to an incorrect pial one, so you're probably better
off rerunning things before trying to edit the pial. Also, the rerunning
after pial editing is fast relative to the whole process, just a couple of
hours I think.
cheers,
Bruce
On
Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Jenny
Kirchner wrote:
Hi,
I am working on a case for which I have run autorecon 2. Edits seem
necessary on both the pial surface and the white matter segmentation.
I am now wondering if it is better to first do the white matter edits
and then run autorecon 2 again to see if the pial surface errors
improved or if it is more economic to do the pial surface edits in the
same step.
I also have a question concerning the differences in segmentation
between the wm.mgz and the ?h.white. I am attaching two screenshots
for you to be able to see it. The wm.mgz is showing white matter,
which in the lh.white (loaded on top of the brainmask.mgz) is not
defined as white matter as shown by the yellow line. (See temporal
pole of the left hemisphere). I am wondering which of the both
segmentations is correct, the wm.mgz version or the lh.white version
and where exactely I have to do the edits.
Thanks a lot for your help! Best,
Jenny
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
