1. It should be very sensitive to this - just make sure the white matter is at least 100 or so in the image (it can be more).

2. You shouldn't need to erase anything - just rerun recon-all

cheers,
Bruce
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jerry Yeou-Wei Chen wrote:

Okay, thanks! I'll give that a shot... but I have a couple of questions
beforehand:
1) How would you recommend that I decide what scale factor to use? Trial and
error to get a peak of ~116?
2) Should I run cp and mri_convert, then erase all other existing files and
folders, and rerun recon-all from the very beginning (using the new 001.mgz
as the input)? Or, can I run cp and mri_convert within the existing
subject/mri/orig/ folder and then rerun recon-all (on the same existing
file/folders)? I hope my question is clear...!

Thanks,
- Jerry

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Bruce Fischl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

Hi Jerry,

I think you can do something like:

cp 001.mgz 001_orig.mgz
mri_convert --scale 3 001_orig.mgz 001.mgz

then the same for the other runs and see how that works in recon-all.
Usually we detect and account for this, but I guess something is failing in
your case.

cheers,
Bruce



On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jerry Yeou-Wei Chen wrote:

 Hi Bruce,

Looking at one of the successfully processed subjects in tkmedit, I
would
guesstimate the range in the brain to be ~20-65. The corresponding
001.mgz
is equally dark.

Regarding the scale option, would I run that initially ( with --scale
<scale
factor> ), and then run autorecon as normal?
Do I find the scale factor as follows: 116 = old peak value * scale
factor,
where old peak value is the mri peak value attained from these dark
images?

Thanks,
- Jerry

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Bruce Fischl <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

 p.s. are the 001.mgz and 002.mgz dark? The orig.mgz? Sometimes
nu_correct
can create very dark images, and there are some switches you can loo
through
to correct them. Alternatively if it is the 001.mgz, mri_convert has a
scale
option you can use.

cheers,
Bruce



On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Jerry Yeou-Wei Chen wrote:

 Okay, thanks for your help again Nick!

Regarding the scan data: I am actually working with data collected
by a
previous member of our lab, and there were indeed some problems...
(related
to the SCIC algorithm on our GE scanner). So, our technician created
a
program to "uncorrect" the intensity scaling.  The images he saved
appear
dark when we load them freesurfer, but we expected autorecon's
intensity
normalization would handle this. In fact, autorecon did successfully
process
34 out of 35 scans. (the cortical surface appears quite decent for
them,
and
the thickness values on our average subject appears to be within
normal
range...)
I wonder if I should be concerned about our results due to this
intensity
issue...

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Nick Schmansky <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

 Jerry,


At this point, I think Bruce will need to jump-in to answer (he is
out-
of-town today).  I think he will ask about your scan parameters,
ie,
how
is your scanner setup?  It sounds as if something is not quite
right
in
the data coming-off the scanner.

Nick


On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:26 -0400, Jerry Yeou-Wei Chen wrote:

 Thanks for the reply, Nick. I think you correctly identified the
problem.
nu.mgz is oriented correctly, but looks very dark... However, it
looks
decent if I adjust the brightness/contrast....
I have other scans that were processed without error, and the
orig.mgz, and nu.mgz also appear quite dark (and the mri peaks
are
very low, too: 29, 46, 52, ...) Also, for those successfully
processed, the brainmask.mgz looks decent as well.
Perhaps this scan that exited with error was too dark to be
corrected
by the intensity normalization algorithm?

- Jerry

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Nick Schmansky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
      Jerry,

      I'm not sure why it exited without giving a better
message,
      but this is
      a clue why it exited:


      before smoothing, mri peak at 0
      after smoothing, mri peak at 0, scaling input intensities
by
      inf




      the mri peak is at zero, which is wrong (it should be
around
      116/117 or
      so).

      if you view nu.mgz (tkmedit -f nu.mgz), does it look ok?
 is
      it oriented
      correctly?

      Nick





      On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 12:28 -0400, Jerry Yeou-Wei Chen
wrote:
   > Hello,
   >
   > I am having trouble deciphering why I got the error
attached
      below.
   > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
   >
   > Thanks,
   > - Jerry
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > Tue Apr 22 10:15:22 EDT 2008
   > talairach_avi done
   >
   >  cp transforms/talairach.auto.xfm transforms/talairach.xfm
   >
   > #--------------------------------------------
   > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Talairach Failure Detection Tue Apr 22 10:15:23 EDT
2008
   > /scratch/freesurfer/subjects/17/s017/mri
   >
   >  talairach_afd -T 0.005 -xfm transforms/talairach.xfm
   >
   > talairach_afd: Talairach Transform:
transforms/talairach.xfm
      OK
   > (p=0.7072, pval=0.4932 >= threshold=0.0050)
   >
   >  awk -
   >
      f /scratch/freesurfer/bin/extract_talairach_avi_QA.awk

/scratch/freesurfer/subjects/17/s017/mri/transforms/talairach_avi.log

    >
   > TalAviQA: 0.96840
   > z-score: -2
   > #--------------------------------------------
   > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intensity Normalization Tue Apr 22 10:15:23 EDT 2008
   > /scratch/freesurfer/subjects/17/s017/mri
   >
   >  mri_normalize -g 1 nu.mgz T1.mgz
   >
   > using max gradient = 1.000
   > reading from nu.mgz...
   > normalizing image...
   > talairach transform
   >  0.976   0.083   0.030  -136.866;
   > -0.072   1.053   0.164  -153.262;
   > -0.020  -0.109   1.085  -122.101;
   >  0.000   0.000   0.000   1.000;
   > INFO: Modifying talairach volume c_(r,a,s) based on
      average_305
   > building Voronoi diagram...
   > performing soap bubble smoothing...
   > 3d normalization pass 1 of 2
   > building Voronoi diagram...
   > performing soap bubble smoothing...
   > 3d normalization pass 2 of 2
   > building Voronoi diagram...
   > performing soap bubble smoothing...
   > writing output to T1.mgz
   > 3D bias adjustment took 19 minutes and 44 seconds.
   > white matter peak found at 111
   > gm peak at 88 (88), valley at 80 (80)
   > csf peak at 57, setting threshold to 77
   > white matter peak found at 111
   > gm peak at 88 (88), valley at 80 (80)
   > csf peak at 55, setting threshold to 77
   > #--------------------------------------------
   > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skull Stripping Tue Apr 22 10:35:16 EDT 2008
   > /scratch/freesurfer/subjects/17/s017/mri
   >
   >  mri_em_register -skull
   >
      nu.mgz

 /scratch/freesurfer/average/RB_all_withskull_2008-03-26.gca

    > transforms/talairach_with_skull.lta
   >
   > aligning to atlas containing skull, setting
      unknown_nbr_spacing = 5
   > reading 1 input volumes...
   > logging results to talairach_with_skull.log
   > reading
   >


 '/scratch/freesurfer/average/RB_all_withskull_2008-03-26.gca'...
   > average std = 23.1   using min determinant for
      regularization = 53.4
   > 0 singular and 5702 ill-conditioned covariance matrices
      regularized
   > reading 'nu.mgz'...
   > freeing gibbs priors...done.
   > bounding unknown intensity as < 20.2 or > 943.7
   > total sample mean = 92.0 (1443 zeros)
   > ************************************************
   > spacing=8, using 3481 sample points, tol=1.00e-05...
   > ************************************************
   > register_mri: find_optimal_transform
   > find_optimal_transform: nsamples 3481, passno 0, spacing 8
   > GCAhistoScaleImageIntensities: could not find wm peak
   > resetting wm mean[0]: 117 --> 126
   > resetting gm mean[0]: 74 --> 74
   > input volume #1 is the most T1-like
   > using real data threshold=9.0
   > using (102, 110, 122) as brain centroid...
   > mean wm in atlas = 126, using box (80,83,98) --> (123,
      136,146) to
   > find MRI wm
   > before smoothing, mri peak at 0
   > after smoothing, mri peak at 0, scaling input intensities
by
      inf
   > Linux kdavis8-efef.uhnres.utoronto.ca 2.6.23.1-21.fc7 #1
SMP
      Thu Nov 1
   > 21:09:24 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
   >
   > recon-all exited with ERRORS at Tue Apr 22 10:41:40 EDT
2008

   > _______________________________________________
   > 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








_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Reply via email to