Hi Nick, Is this "bug" specific to v3.0.5? Because when I specify white vs. pial surfaces as <surface name> options under v3.0.4, I do get different values for the curvature measures, leading me to think the <surface name> option works fine under v3.0.4 ??
Also, could you please clarify whether the default surface for 'mris_anatomical_stats' is the pial or the white surface? Using v3.0.4, when I run 'mri_anatomical_stats' with no <surface name> option, I get the same values for surface area and curvature as when I specify the WHITE surface. But when I specify the pial surface, the values change relative to the default. This leads me to think that the default curvature and surface area values (as executed by recon-all) are actually for the white surface. Thanks for the additional clarifications, Mike H. On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 12:47 -0400, Nick Schmansky wrote: > Mike, > > I've updated the release notes to be more specific (and less alarming!) > on the problem found with mris_anatomical_stats. The new notes state: > > "mris_anatomical_stats effectively ignores the <surface name> command > line argument when reporting on its curvature measures, and will always > report on the pial surface. This does not impact the results output by > mris_anatomical_stats when executed by recon-all, as it reports on the > pial surface as-is (the <surface name> option of mris_anatomical_stats > is not used by recon-all)." > > In short, the results produced by mris_anatomical_stats, as called by > recon-all, are correct for all distributed versions of Freesurfer. > > It is only if the <surface name> argument is used, and a surface other > than pial is specified, that the bug exposes itself. > > Sorry for the misinformation. > > Nick > > > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 10:34 -0500, Michael Harms wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The FS release notes for v3.0.5 state: > > "mris_anatomical_stats produces incorrect results. There is no work- > > around. A replacement for Linux is here. This fix will appear in the > > next release." > > > > Is the entire output of 'mris_anatomical_stats' incorrect, or just one > > part of it? And, does the problem, whatever it is, apply to any > > previous stable versions (e.g., v3.0.4)? > > > > thanks, > > Mike Harms > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freesurfer mailing list > > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freesurfer mailing list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
