thanks bruce. indeed, we are not expecting identical output and in these
cases that we are looking at it's all 5.x for most part.
cheers,
satra
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Satra,
>
> certainly fsaverage will change if we change things in spherical
> registration, or
Hi Satra,
certainly fsaverage will change if we change things in spherical
registration, or potentially elsewhere. I don't anticipate any large
changes, but I wouldn't count on them being identical
Bruce
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013,
Satrajit Ghosh wrote:
> hi bruce and others,
> are there any specific
hi bruce and others,
are there any specific implications we should be worried about (e.g., with
qdec or surf2surf) when using an fsaverage that's from a different version
that ran the recon.
cheers,
satra
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.
Georg Homola
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2009 17:05
An: 'Freesurfer Mailing List'
Betreff: Re: [Freesurfer] fsaverage across versions
Hi,
my follow up question would be, how much has changed regarding fsaverage
between freesurfer version 4.1.0 and 4.3.1? Is the added insula label the
o
Hi,
my follow up question would be, how much has changed regarding fsaverage
between freesurfer version 4.1.0 and 4.3.1? Is the added insula label the
only change that has been made? Besides, when I load both annotations, the
old and the new one, it seems to me almost every border of the parcella
Iris, the registration targets were derived differently. With version 4,
we automatically fill in all the ventricles. In verion 3, they were
partially filled in manually. Version 3 creates a surface around the
ventrical making it look like a sulcus, and this affects both the target
and the regi
Hi,
we have several reconstructed brains, which were processed by freesurfer 3.0.5.
We also kept using the fsaverage data from 3.0.5 in order to be consistent.
We wish to do fMRI analysis with freesurfer/fs-fast 4.0.5 and found that
talairach coordinates differ slightly
when using the fsaverag
