Yes, that's correct, it's the smaller RMS file. FreeSurfer will complain
if it's supplied with a multi-frame (4 echo) volume i.e. you should get a
warning if you use the wrong file.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Bruce Fischl wrote:
Hi Johann
I believe that is the case, but Andre (ccd) can confirm
che
e,
> but I could be wrong. I'll cc Andre van der Kouwe who will know
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Mads Jensen wrote:
>
>> Hi and thanks for the fast reply.
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but I am not sure that the PD images are?
>>
>> thanks,
>> mads
Hi,
Thanks, yes, we have this problem on our scans from the Allegra and 7 T
scanners, where there's a local transmit coil (no body transmit coil)
and therefore blood with non-inverted spins enters the head after the
inversion pulse and appears bright in the images. With our Allegra scans
this
No, I think that's a reasonable protocol to use and good to use SENSE to speed
it up.
Original message
From: Bruce Fischl
Date:04/01/2014 2:28 PM (GMT+02:00)
To: Freesurfer support list
Cc: Andre van der Kouwe
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] quality T1 scans for new
;s ok
but I wouldn't compare subjects with systematically different protocols
like those below.
Cheers,
Andre.
Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Daniel
>
> those are pretty big differences in flip angle. I'll cc Andre van der
> Kouwe on this so he can comment, but I would be he
2012, octavian lie wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we use a Phillips scanner for 3T scans: MPRAGE T1 TR
>> 9.89; TE 4.60. If you have any suggestions, including which of the
>> protocols comes closest, let mw know.
>> Best,
>> Octa
Do you have a Siemens scanner?
You can compare your protocols with the examples at:
www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~andre.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Octavian
>
> what kind of scanner are you using? Andre van der Kouwe and Dylan Tisdall
> (ccd) have developed a multi
