Hi Luis,
1. I'll leave this for Doug.
2. The aseg.mgz is indendent of (and produced before) the mri_segment
step (which produces the wm.mgz). In general we don't use the cortical part
of the aseg as the surfaces in our experience are more accurate.
3. Can you give an example of this? I would think control points could
help. Note that we don't use image intensity, but rather local gradient
maximum to position the pial surface, which should be independent of local
bias.
cheers,
Bruce
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear FS experts,
1. There are some frequent mismatches between the white matter and cortex
parcellations (aparc+aseg.mgz and wmparc.mgz) with zeroed voxels between
them.
Would suppressing the option --ribbon when running aparc2aseg either
during cortex or white matter parcellation (or both) result in a more
close match between aparc+aseg.mgz and wmparc.mgz? Other suggestions?
2. Cortex segmentation output in aseg.mgz is not uncommonly thinner than
it should be in my data. Tweaking around the default mri_segment settings
for white matter lo/hi and gray matter hi may improve it. I am still
looking for optimal settings and the pial surface is not under control.
Any specific suggestions?
3. These days acquiring with multichannel headcoils has become almost the
norm. Even normalized data seems to suffer somehow. Particularly,
superficial and brighter cortex is prone to produce thinner cortex
thickness results than cortex in basal regions with less signal. Any
workarounds?
Many thanks,
Luis
_______________________________________________
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
