The lh.area in fsaverage is the area of the white surface (as in an
individual subject). But the white surface is not like an individual in
that many of the folds have been smoothed out (because it is an
average). So mri_surfcluster fixes this internally, which is why you see
the discrepancy (and the first method is larger than the second). If you
want them to be identical, add --no-fix-vertex-area to mri_surfcluster.
On 6/11/2024 10:49 AM, wangzhiwei3233 wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer experts,
I got the area of a cluster by two methods, and found the results were
inconstant.
Method 1: During group level analysis, the individual surface was
normalized to fsaverage. I exported the cluster area and label file by
command /mri_surfcluster/.
The command ws as followed:
/
/
/mri_surfcluster --in ./sig.nii.gz --subject fsaverage --hemi lh
--centroid --annot aparc --thmin ${thp} --sign ${sigsignTemp}
--no-adjust --minarea ${tharea} --sum
area${tharea}.${sigsignTemp}${thp_infilename}.cluster.summary --o
area${tharea}.${sigsignTemp}${thp_infilename}.cluster.nii.gz --ocn
area${tharea}.${sigsignTemp}${thp_infilename}.ocn.nii.gz --olab
$Dir_Subj_fMRI/$out_dir_group/$analysis/$contrast/label_area${tharea}.${sigsignTemp}${thp_infilename}/label
/
Method 2: I calculated the cluster area using the label file outputed
by /mri_surfcluster/ via the matlab funciton read_curv. I did this to
test the method for calculating the area of a label manually drawn by me.
1, I first got the area of each vertex by the command
area = read_curv('../fsaverage/surf/lh.area');
2, I red the IDs of vertices in the label file and added 1
3, I got area values of vertices in the label file and summed them.
I found the areas calculated by the Method2 were much smaller(except
one ROI) than the ones exported by /mri_surfcluster /as shown below.
Area from Method 1：
# ClusterNo Size(mm^2) NVtxs Annot
1 *833.94* 1999 postcentral
2 *578.52 * 1300 precuneus
3 *243.78 * 463 middletemporal
4 *184.72* 344 inferiorparietal
5 *111.76* 292 insula
Area from Method 2：
ClusterNumber Area(mm^2) NVtxs AnotomicalRegion
1*637.39* 1999postcentral
2*480.44* 1300precuneus
3*140.37*463middletemporal
4*166.33*344inferiorparietal
5*112.76*292insula
What's the reason? Where did I do wrong in the method 2?
Thanks.
Best,
zhiwei
--
-----------------------------------------------
Zhiwei Wang（王志伟), Associate Investigator
International Center for Primate Brain Research
Center for Excellence in Brain and Intelligence Technology
Institute of Neuroscience,Chinese Academy of Sciences
Room 215, Building #5, 500 Qiangye Road, Shanghai, 201602,China
_______________________________________________
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
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 Mass General Brigham
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline
<https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of
this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.
