How did you get the 15 mm^2 regions? And how did you know that they are
15mm^2? There are some complications with using the raw vertex areas on
fsaverage. The total surface area of the average will be wrong
(inevitable with the way that fsaverage is computed). However, there is
a correction, and our tools take this into account.
doug
jorge luis wrote:
Hello all
I have made deep changes in 9 regions of a left
hemisfere of a subject surface after maped it onto
the fsaverage subject sphere. The changes were made to
have areas close to 15 mm^2. I computed the areas by
add the areas of the faces inside the regions
(computed using the vertexes spherical coordinates).
The freesurfer sphere mapping is based in minimal
metric distortion, so, why I got the following
differences?:
Region Computed areas (mm^2) Computed areas (mm^2)
uing mri_surfcluster as explained before
with the fsaverage sphere
1 27.56 15.0522
2 21.78 15.0946
3 21.41 15.1087
4 20.77 15.1501
5 19.28 15.1797
6 16.60 15.1918
7 15.99 15.2781
8 14.31 15.3373
9 13.89 15.0541
In both cases the same surface vertexes were found to
be inside the regions
Another thing:
Should I use the sig.mgh file resulted from the
mri_glm estimation as the input to the mri_surfcluster
function in MonteCarlo simulations? (plus the .csd
file of course).
In advance thank you a lot
Jorge
______________________________________________
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
--
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone Number: 617-724-2358
Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in:
surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
