Hi FreeSurfers,
I was just reading this post to the archive (below) regarding using
mri_glmfit-sim on volume data, and it suggests that using --grf rather
than doing the simulation can be "inaccurate at low smoothness and low
thresholds." At what smoothness values and threshold values should we
op
on that analysis. Note that
> you will have to rerun the simulation because the search space will have
> changed.
>
> doug
>
>
> On 12/03/2013 12:05 PM, Susan Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I have been running this analysis as I described in my previ
ink it is an open question as to whether
> you should use the corrected maps or use the uncorrected and then correct
> the final map. Maybe someone else can chime in.
>
> doug
>
>
> On 10/23/2013 09:49 AM, Susan Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> This is /ver
Hi all,
When running a functional analysis and comparing two experimental
conditions, we observed that there are some voxels/vertices where both
condition A and condition B have a positive % signal change from baseline,
and condition A has greater activity than condition B.
In other regions, both
econ-all that people can use before 5.2 comes out?
>
> thanks
> Bruce
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Susan Ruiz wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Using previous versions of FreeSurfer, we have used the eTIV as a covariate
>> for our volumetric analyses. We
>>
Hi all,
Using previous versions of FreeSurfer, we have used the eTIV as a covariate for
our volumetric analyses. We have been using the eTIV numbers from 5.1.0 for new
studies. What would you recommend using for subjects who have been run with
5.1.0? Can you make the template available publicly
Hello all,
I have been using FS5.0 and just started using 5.1. I tried running a recon
with the new version with two of my subjects, and in both cases I got the same
error message:
IFLAG= -1 LINE SEARCH FAILED. SEE DOCUMENTATION OF ROUTINE MCSRCH ERROR RETURN
OF LINE SEARCH: INFO= 3 POSSIBLE
