On 01/09/2014 05:15 PM, yaya ya wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Douglas N Greve
> mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/09/2014 04:42 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> > I am sorry for this misunderstanding.
> >
> > I am now performing surface-based analysis on
On 01/09/2014 04:42 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> I am sorry for this misunderstanding.
>
> I am now performing surface-based analysis on my data, especially on
> cortical thickness. Since when I did this analysis based on the whole
> left or right hemisphere, the results were not very good.
>
> That is
I'm still not sure I understand what you are doing. Is it a volume-based
analysis or a surface-based analysis? You would only use a brain mask or
a surface mask for a volume-based analysis.
doug
On 01/09/2014 04:15 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> Thank you very much for your patience, douglas.
>
> I just
Thank you very much for your patience, douglas.
I just want to create a surface mask. What you said is use
mri_annotation2label to create a surface mask. Then when do mri_glmfit
analysis on the surface, I need to use the flag --label my surface mask.
If my understanding is wrong, don't hesitate t
Is this an analysis of volume/voxel data or surface/vertex data? If
surface, then you'll need to extract the left insula label from
lh.aparc.annot (use mri_annotation2label), then pass this label to
mri_glmfit with --label
doug
On 01/09/2014 03:52 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> Thanks, Doug.
>
> I jus
Thanks, Doug.
I just searched the list to find how to generate a mask. Let us say the
surface of the left insula.
It seems that I need to use mri_mask command and the brain which I use to
get the mask should be brainmask.mgz in the fsaverage, right?
Then I use this mask in mri_glmfit command.
A
On 01/09/2014 02:18 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> Dear Doug,
>
> I am sorry. It is my first time to post the message in this way. I am
> now used to it:)
>
> The results from the contrast 0 0 1 -1 did not survive the multiple
> comparision corrections. In other words, I guess that it should imply
> that
Dear Doug,
I am sorry. It is my first time to post the message in this way. I am now
used to it:)
The results from the contrast 0 0 1 -1 did not survive the multiple
comparision corrections. In other words, I guess that it should imply that
I could try DOSS.
If my thought is wrong, please feel f
Please remember to post to the list. For the 0 0 1 -1 contrast, did any
results survive multiple comparisons correction? If so, then at least
the voxels in that region cannot be used with DOSS. I'm not sure why the
patter was opposite between the two contrasts. I could mean that there
is a non
On 01/08/2014 04:28 PM, yaya ya wrote:
> Dear Freesurfer experts,
>
> I have a question about cortical thickness analysis using freesurfer.
> Since I don't know how to post my question in freesurfer mailing
> list, that is why I am writing to you to get some help. Hopefully, my
> email will no
Dear Freesurfer experts,
I have a question about cortical thickness analysis using freesurfer. Since
I don't know how to post my question in freesurfer mailing list, that is
why I am writing to you to get some help. Hopefully, my email will not
cause you any troubles.
My question is : When I com
11 matches
Mail list logo
