Thanks, Martin.
It is unfortunate to hear such news, but they are of course accurate. Hopefully
this affects a small subset of subjects, and I will be able to add a covariate
to it.
Regards,
Pedro Rosa.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Martin Reuter wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> there is re
Hi Pedro,
there is really no way to fix it. Especially if all you subjects changed
acquisition. If it is only a small subset, you can then include a
co-variable to account for this in your stats. You should then also test
whether one group has more of these cases than the other, or if it is
d
Hi Martin,
Thank you for your answer.
Is there a way to fix it? Can reslicing help?
Or to try compenate for it in the processing or statistics?
Regards
--
Pedro Rosa
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 12:13, Martin Reuter wrote:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> yes, there was a bug (well, not really a bug but the check w
Hi Pedro,
yes, there was a bug (well, not really a bug but the check was
oversensitive). It was testing too many image parameters, some of them
could be problematic (e.g. different voxel sizes across time), and some
not.
Looking at your attached files, you can see that the voxel sizes differ
Dear FreeSurfers,
I have read in the Mailing list
(http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer%40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg32753.html and
others) other users asking questioning in regard of a Warning from FreeSurfer
5.3 longitudinal pipeline (-base step):
\n**
