Michelle Umali wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> I've already smoothed by 5 during preproc-sess, so does this mean I
> should do additional smoothing during fieldsign-sess step?
>
Try the additional one now to see if it fixes the map.
> Also, is this the correct command to use the sphere and not the patch
Hi Doug,
I've already smoothed by 5 during preproc-sess, so does this mean I
should do additional smoothing during fieldsign-sess step?
Also, is this the correct command to use the sphere and not the patch:
fieldsign-sess -a rtopy.self.lh -fwhm 5 -sphere -s sj09
Thanks.
Michelle
Quoting Dougl
Try smoothing (eg, -fwhm 5) when running fieldsign-sess. You can also
try using the sphere instead of the occip patch.
doug
Michelle Umali wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Thanks again for your advice, the heat maps look much better. However,
> they still do not visualize the continuous range of angles or
>
The activation looks pretty reasonable. As you point out, the angles are
a mess. How did you set the color scale for the angles? You should leave
it as a heat scale (if you're using tksurfer-sess). How much did you smooth?
doug
Michelle Umali wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> Attached is a pic of the signifi
what does the activation look like? Does it look right? Can you send a pic?
doug
Michelle Umali wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> The z-values are consistently near or greater than 4. It just seems that the
> visualization of the angles is somehow incorrect...
>
> Is there be anything else that I need to check?
Hi Doug,
The z-values are consistently near or greater than 4. It just seems that the
visualization of the angles is somehow incorrect...
Is there be anything else that I need to check?
Thanks.
Michelle
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.har
Look at the significance maps to make sure they look reasonable. Just run
tksurfer-sess -a rtopy.self.lh -s sj17
doug
Michelle Umali wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> You're right it was the wrong map, and now the angles make sense.
>
> But when I look at the correct images, the eccen and polar maps are
> v
Hi Doug,
You're right it was the wrong map, and now the angles make sense.
But when I look at the correct images, the eccen and polar maps are
very, very speckled. So, in the relevant visual areas, there are
hardly any 0 values, so I would expect a more contiguous color pattern.
Is there any
Hi Michelle, I don't think you are looking at the angle. The eccen angle
should go from 0-2pi. The polar angle should go from -pi to +pi. What is
you visualization command-line? You can change the color scale from the
View->Configure->Overlay window.
doug
Michelle Umali wrote:
> Dear Freesurfer
Dear Freesurfers,
In an effort to figure out why my field sign data is a bunch of
blue/red speckles, I looked at the polar and eccentricity maps
separately on the surface.
In both maps, I found that the values range from 0 to approximately
65. Does that seem to be OK, and if so, what do th
10 matches
Mail list logo
