Hi Jeff, I personally like the idea of using average thickness as a covariate to control for a reduction in "whole brain" thickness, and have used that approach in a paper. If the Abstract that you mentioned indicated that this is flawed, I'd be curious to know what the reason was...
cheers, -MH On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 21:00 -0400, Bruce Fischl wrote: > Hi Jeff > > yes, I think this is still our recommendation for thickness, although > perhaps David Salat can verify. As far as surface area, you might get > Anderson Winkler to send you a preprint of his newly accepted paper on > surface area comparisons and how to do them properly. I would have said > normalize by the 2/3 root of ICV (maybe David can comment on this as well) > > cheers > Bruce > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jeff Sadino wrote: > > > Hello, > > For cortical thickness normalizations, Bruce said not to normalize based on > > a HBM > > abstract > > (http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg06646.html). > > Is > > this still the consensus? > > > > For cortical volume, it is pretty standard to normalize to eTIV. > > > > For cortical surface area (jacobian), I couldn't find any information on > > the wiki. > > Does anyone have any recommendations? > > > > Thank you, > > Jeff > > > > > _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer The information > in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If > you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains > patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at > http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in > error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and > properly dispose of the e-mail. _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
