[Freesurfer] A question about hippocampal subfield segmentation
Hi, freesurfer experts, I have a question about how to convert a segmented hippocampal subfield file into a ROI. After -hippo-subfields processing using recon-all command, I have got several files named posterior_left/right_**.mgz. And the segmented volume just coverd a small area in subject's whole brain volume. Now i want to convert the segented volume into subject's whole brain volume space and I can use it as a ROI. Is there any solution to do that? Hope for the reply. Best regards, Lijie Huang ___ 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] VBM in SPM and FreeSurfer
Hi, FreeSurfer and VBM experts I'm a newer in the field, and not sure if this question is relevant to the list - any help will be appreciated. I am wondering about the difference between the data of FS and that of VBM in SPM. After searching in Google, I find a topic following, url: https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail/freesurfer/2008-May/007710.html, and have some different opinions. In the discussion in above link, all believe that FS and VBM could give the same measurement - volume, yet I don't think so. I admit that we could get the volume of specific ROI by multiplying the thickness by the surface area, but through VBM in SPM, we get the mass( something like it) of the gray matter( multiply the density of gray matter by the volume). They have different meaning, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know if I get the right understanding. Thanks a lot in advance. Lijie Huang email: huanglijie.s...@gmail.com State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning Beijing Normal University Beijing China ___ 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] A question about make_average_subject
Hi all: Recently, I have a question about some details of the function make_average_subject, which creates some average surfaces and volumes based on the specified subjects' files. And I'm wondering how it make an average one. In my opinion, every specified subject's volume and surface register to a existed template( something like fsaverage) and we can acquire a transform matrix or something like it. According to the transformation, we can register them roughly. And then we can average them to a mean one. I don't know whether my thought right or not. Can anyone give me some tips? :) Thanks in advance Lijie Huang ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] A question about make_average_subject
Ah, I think I got the point. Thank you for your quick reply. :) Lijie Huang On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Douglas Greve wrote: > Hi Lijie, we have a default surface template that we use. When you create > an average subject from a group, a template based on those subjects is > created at the same time. This can be used as a registration target. > doug > > > On 3/31/11 9:03 PM, soft.join Huang wrote: > > Thanks for your reply, Douglas. > I also have something unclear, that which target is used when we register > one subject's surface to a 'template', a default surface in the FreeSurfer > or something else, like one surface selected randomly from my specified > subjects. > > Best Regards, > Lijie Huang > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Douglas N Greve > wrote: > >> Hi Lijie, yes, for the volume averages that is the process (uses the >> linear 12 DOF registration to the MNI305). For surfaces, the average >> surfaces are created based on the non-linear surface transformation (not >> from the average volume). >> doug >> >> soft.join Huang wrote: >> >>> Hi all: >>> Recently, I have a question about some details of the function >>> make_average_subject, which creates some average surfaces and volumes based >>> on the specified subjects' files. >>> And I'm wondering how it make an average one. >>> In my opinion, every specified subject's volume and surface register to a >>> existed template( something like fsaverage) and we can acquire a transform >>> matrix or something like it. According to the transformation, we can >>> register them roughly. And then we can average them to a mean one. >>> I don't know whether my thought right or not. Can anyone give me some >>> tips? :) >>> Thanks in advance >>> Lijie Huang >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Freesurfer mailing list >>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >>> >> >> -- >> Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. >> MGH-NMR Center >> gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 >> >> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting >> FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html >> >> >> >> 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 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] A problem about mri_glmfit result
Hi all, I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit. In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which containing the matrix X ( size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value from beta.mgh file. Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the beta using function regress in matlab, but got a different result from that of mri_glmfit. I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in algorithm between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress( regress(Y,X) )? or I made some mistakes during the procedure. The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the attachment. Thanks in advance Lijie Huang X.mat Description: Binary data Y.mat Description: Binary data ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] A problem about mri_glmfit result
Doug, Thanks for your reply. I recalculated the beta value and got the same results as the Matlab does, but be different from the mri_glmfit's. I can not figure out where the problem is. Details following: I use the command mri_glmfit --table lh.volume.txt --fsgd volume.gender.fsgd doss --C gender.diff.mtx --glmdir lh.vol.glmdir to finish regression analysis. and got the beta value ( beta1 = 1.9781e+03, beta2 = 2.0639e+03, beta3 = 110.9220, beta4 = 5.1964e-04 ) from beta.mgh file. Using X.mat file and the same dependent variable Y.mat as mri_glmfit's, I got totally different results in Matlab( beta1 = 5.19e+02, beta2 = 4.44e+02, beta3 = 90.32, beta4 = 0.0015 ). I don't know how it happened... Hope for your reply. The data I used are all in the attachment. Best Regrads, Lijie Huang On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, wrote: > Lijie, > > I don't know what the matlab regress() function does. mri_glmfit is just > solving the GLM equation, which you can do easily in matlab: > > beta = inv(X'*X)*X'*y; > > try that and see if you get the same as mri_glmfit. > > doug > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit. > > In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which containing the matrix X > ( > > size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value from beta.mgh > > file. > > Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the beta using > > function regress in matlab, but got a different result from that of > > mri_glmfit. > > I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in algorithm > > between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress( regress(Y,X) )? or I made > > some mistakes during the procedure. > > The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the attachment. > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Lijie Huang > > ___ > > 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. > > lh.aparc.volume lh_bankssts_volume S0295 2613 S0057 3172 S0138 3267 S0139 2962 S0104 3071 S0230 2852 S0032 3434 S0165 3181 S0338 2629 S0099 2891 S0004 3382 S0296 3208 S0105 2067 S0036 2826 S0279 3148 S0140 3162 S0085 2364 S0311 2723 S0037 2085 S0166 2223 S0038 1999 S0231 2429 S0232 3004 S0167 1964 S0108 2850 S0141 2949 S0135 2213 S0322 2053 S0142 1983 S0098 2608 S0282 2047 S0101 2652 S0005 3261 S0299 2793 S0143 2478 S0109 2956 S0312 3468 S0271 2669 S0168 3649 S0323 3097 S0283 2921 S0144 1560 S0284 3081 S0255 2717 S0001 2880 S0324 2771 S0285 2989 S0256 3164 S0111 4366 S0233 2446 gender.diff.mtx Description: Binary data volume.gender.fsgd Description: Binary data X.mat Description: Binary data Y.mat Description: Binary data ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] A problem about mri_glmfit result
Hi, doug. Thanks for your suggestion, but it does not seem to work. After having divided the ICV by 1e6, I reculated the betas, and got the similar results as before in Matlab, just the beta4 -- correspondent to ICV -- multiplied a 10^6. And then I computed the rank of matrix X that the value is 4, indicating that each 2 variables in design matrix do not highly correlated. Also I have finished an regress analysis including one class variable and one continuous variable using mri_glmfit, got the same result in Matlab. A wired situation... Is it any additional constrains in mri_glmfit when doing regression analysis? Lijie Huang On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Douglas N Greve wrote: > I think the problem may be that your data are "badly scaled" meaning that > one column is much greater than another column. Try dividing the ICV by 1e6 > and see if you get more similar results. > > doug > > soft.join Huang wrote: > >> Doug, >> Thanks for your reply. >> I recalculated the beta value and got the same results as the Matlab does, >> but be different from the mri_glmfit's. I can not figure out where the >> problem is. >> Details following: >> I use the command >> mri_glmfit --table lh.volume.txt --fsgd volume.gender.fsgd doss >> --C gender.diff.mtx --glmdir lh.vol.glmdir >> to finish regression analysis. and got the beta value ( beta1 = >> 1.9781e+03, beta2 = 2.0639e+03, beta3 = 110.9220, beta4 = 5.1964e-04 ) from >> beta.mgh file. >> Using X.mat file and the same dependent variable Y.mat as >> mri_glmfit's, I got totally different results in Matlab( beta1 = 5.19e+02, >> beta2 = 4.44e+02, beta3 = 90.32, beta4 = 0.0015 ). >> I don't know how it happened... >> Hope for your reply. >> The data I used are all in the attachment. >> Best Regrads, >> Lijie Huang >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, > gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote: >> >>Lijie, >> >>I don't know what the matlab regress() function does. mri_glmfit >>is just >>solving the GLM equation, which you can do easily in matlab: >> >>beta = inv(X'*X)*X'*y; >> >>try that and see if you get the same as mri_glmfit. >> >>doug >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit. >>> In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which containing the >>matrix X ( >>> size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value from >>beta.mgh >>> file. >>> Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the >>beta using >>> function regress in matlab, but got a different result from that of >>> mri_glmfit. >>> I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in >>algorithm >>> between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress( regress(Y,X) )? >>or I made >>> some mistakes during the procedure. >>> The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the >>attachment. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> >>> Lijie Huang >>> ___ >>> Freesurfer mailing list >>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >><mailto: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. >> >> >> > -- > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > MGH-NMR Center > > gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > > ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] A problem about mri_glmfit result
Oh, sorry, Greve. I misunderstood your suggestion. Now I get the same resulte in both mri_glmfit and matlab. Thanks a lot! But there is still a question about how it happened. Why I have to do so to get the correct result? There is nothing relevant between the number scale of one variable and the beta values of other variables theoretically. Is it any relevance to the data size of data structure in mri_glmfit? Best Regards, Lijie Huang On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Douglas N Greve wrote: > sorry, I mean to do it for both the FSGD file and the matlab script. I just > tried it with your data and it works. > > doug > > soft.join Huang wrote: > >> Hi, doug. >> Thanks for your suggestion, but it does not seem to work. >> After having divided the ICV by 1e6, I reculated the betas, and got the >> similar results as before in Matlab, just the beta4 -- correspondent to ICV >> -- multiplied a 10^6. >> And then I computed the rank of matrix X that the value is 4, indicating >> that each 2 variables in design matrix do not highly correlated. >> Also I have finished an regress analysis including one class variable and >> one continuous variable using mri_glmfit, got the same result in Matlab. >> A wired situation... >> Is it any additional constrains in mri_glmfit when doing regression >> analysis? >> Lijie Huang >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Douglas N Greve < >> gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote: >> >>I think the problem may be that your data are "badly scaled" >>meaning that one column is much greater than another column. Try >>dividing the ICV by 1e6 and see if you get more similar results. >> >>doug >> >>soft.join Huang wrote: >> >>Doug, >> Thanks for your reply. >>I recalculated the beta value and got the same results as the >>Matlab does, but be different from the mri_glmfit's. I can not >>figure out where the problem is. >>Details following: >>I use the command >> mri_glmfit --table lh.volume.txt --fsgd >>volume.gender.fsgd doss --C gender.diff.mtx --glmdir lh.vol.glmdir >>to finish regression analysis. and got the beta value ( >>beta1 = 1.9781e+03, beta2 = 2.0639e+03, beta3 = 110.9220, >>beta4 = 5.1964e-04 ) from beta.mgh file. >>Using X.mat file and the same dependent variable Y.mat as >>mri_glmfit's, I got totally different results in Matlab( beta1 >>= 5.19e+02, beta2 = 4.44e+02, beta3 = 90.32, beta4 = 0.0015 ). >>I don't know how it happened... >> Hope for your reply. >>The data I used are all in the attachment. >> Best Regrads, >> Lijie Huang >>On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, ><mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >><mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >><mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>> wrote: >> >> Lijie, >> >> I don't know what the matlab regress() function does. >>mri_glmfit >> is just >> solving the GLM equation, which you can do easily in matlab: >> >> beta = inv(X'*X)*X'*y; >> >> try that and see if you get the same as mri_glmfit. >> >> doug >> >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit. >> > In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which >>containing the >> matrix X ( >> > size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value >>from >> beta.mgh >> > file. >> > Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the >> beta using >> > function regress in matlab, but got a different result >>from that of >> > mri_glmfit. >> > I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in >> algorithm >> > between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress( >>regress(Y,X) )? >> or I made >> > some mistakes during the procedure. >> > The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the >> attachment. >> > >> > Thanks in advance >> > >> > Lijie Huang >>
Re: [Freesurfer] Making a custom experimental template
Hi doug, I read your instructions on how to make an average subject, it looks quite streamlined. But I still have two questions about the procedure. 1. During the processing, every subject's surface need to register to a common target, and where the target comes from, it is an existed template in FreeSurfer or randomly selected from the pool of subjects, or something else? 2. In order to get a well-established or accurate average template, how many times does the function make_average_subject need to run? Thanks in advance, Lijie Huang On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Douglas N Greve wrote: > Hi Joakim, > > here are some instructions on what to do (some of which you've already > done): > > doug > > # Create an average subject (Creates $SUBJECTS_DIR/newtemplate) > make_average_subject --out newtemplate --subjects subj1 subj2 subj3 ... > > # Register each subject to the new template (do for both lh and rh) > # Creates lh.sphere.reg.newtemplate and rh.sphere.reg.newtemplate > foreach subject (subj1 subj2 subj3 ...) > cd $SUBJECTS_DIR/subject > mris_register -curv surf/lh.sphere \ > $SUBJECTS_DIR/newtemplate/lh.reg.template.tif \ > surf/lh.sphere.reg.newtemplate > end > > # Get thickness values in the newtemplate space for GLM analysis > mris_preproc --surfreg sphere.reg.newtemplate --s subj1 --s subj2 --s > subj3 ... > > # Create another average template based on the previous one: > # (Creates $SUBJECTS_DIR/newnewtemplate) > make_average_subject --out newnewtemplate --surf-reg > sphere.reg.newtemplate \ > --subjects subj1 subj2 subj3 ... > > > > > Joakim Vinberg wrote: > > Doug, > > Thanks! I just took a look at make_average_subject, and that looks > > quite a bit more streamlined--I think I'll just do that. > > Looking at make_average_subject, this should make the replacement for > > fsaverage. Following that, I would want to run mri_surf2surf to > > generate all of the surfaces in our new template space? > > Thanks! > > Joakim > > > > > > *From:* Douglas N Greve [mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] > > *Sent:* Fri 5/6/2011 9:46 AM > > *To:* Joakim Vinberg > > *Cc:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] Making a custom experimental template > > > > You are correct. If you run make_average_subject, it will create the > > template for you (as well as all the other files in a typical subject > > dir -- you'll need these to do a simple replacement for fsaverage). > > > > doug > > > > Joakim Vinberg wrote: > > > > > > Hi FS crowd, > > > > > > I just want to make sure that I have the process correctly described > > > for setting up a custom experimental template. I am basing this off of > > > the SurfaceRegAndTemplates > > > (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/SurfaceRegAndTemplates), and > > > a hypothetical experiment with 10 subjects (s1, s2, …s10). I apologize > > > if this has been well-covered—I couldn’t quite match it on the website > > > or the archives. > > > > > > For the prep step, I believe my commands would be: > > > > > > mris_make_template lh sphere s1 custom_template_lh_0.tif > > > > > > mris_make_template rh sphere s1 custom_template_rh_0.tif > > > > > > which would result in two new template files names > > > custom_template_lh_0.tif and custom_template_rh_0.tif > > > > > > For Round 1, I would first create another registration for each > subject: > > > > > > mris_register s1/surf/lh.sphere custom_template_lh_0.tif > > > s1/surf/lh.sphere.regcustom_0 > > > > > > mris_register s1/surf/rh.sphere custom_template_rh_0.tif > > > s1/surf/rh.sphere.regcustom_0 > > > > > > … > > > > > > mris_register s10/surf/lh.sphere custom_template_lh_0.tif > > > s10/surf/lh.sphere.regcustom_0 > > > > > > mris_register s10/surf/rh.sphere custom_template_rh_0.tif > > > s10/surf/rh.sphere.regcustom_0 > > > > > > And then create another custom template: > > > > > > mris_make_template lh sphere s1 s2 s3 … s10 custom_template_lh_1.tif > > > > > > mris_make_template rh sphere s1 s2 s3 … s10 custom_template_rh_1.tif > > > > > > For round 2, I would repeat Round 1, generating a new set of > > > sphere.reg files, and then a new template, except substitute the > > > custom template from round 1 (custom_template_lh_1.tif and > > > custom_template_rh_1.tif). > > > > > > Then, I would register all of my data to the custom_template_lh_2.tif > > > and custom_template_rh_2.tif generated at the end of round 2. From > > > there, I am assuming that I could be able to use this new template as > > > I would fsaverage. Am I correct, or have I missed a step? > > > > > > Thanks in advance for all of your help! > > > > > > Joakim > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Freesurfer mailing list > > > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer > > > > -- > > Douglas N. Greve,
[Freesurfer] A question about the coords of the vertex
Hi all, I have a question about the coords of vertex in ?h.white file. I load the ?h.white file in Matlab and get a variable called vertex_coords, and I'm wondering what kind of coords they are, MNI or something else? Also how can I get the MNI coords of the vertex? Thank in advance, Best Regards, Lijie Huang ___ 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.
