me intracranial volume includes
>>> everything, even non-cortical regions? If that is so, is
>>> BrainSegVol
>>> a measure of total cortical volume? I also noticed that the
>>> values in
>>> BrainSegVol differ greatly between the two stats files. Y
Vol differ greatly between the two stats files. Your help
is
greatly appreciated,
Nathan
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 12:47 PM
To: Dankner, Nathan (NIH/NIMH) [F]
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Aparcs
in
> > BrainSegVol differ greatly between the two stats files. Your help is
> > greatly appreciated,
> >
> >>
> >> Nathan
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
>
p is
greatly appreciated,
Nathan
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 12:47 PM
To: Dankner, Nathan (NIH/NIMH) [F]
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Aparcstats question
Hi Nathan,
the "unknown" l
athan (NIH/NIMH) [F]
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Aparcstats question
Hi Nathan,
the "unknown" label is intended to be non-cortical regions such as the
callosum, and should be ignord. I think total white matter volume is
generated by default, but maybe N
...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: Wed 3/11/2009 12:47 PM
To: Dankner, Nathan (NIH/NIMH) [F]
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Aparcstats question
Hi Nathan,
the "unknown" label is intended to be non-cortical regions such as the
callosum, and should be ignord. I think t
Hi Nathan,
the "unknown" label is intended to be non-cortical regions such as the
callosum, and should be ignord. I think total white matter volume is
generated by default, but maybe Nick or Doug can correct me (although Nick
is out of the country)
Bruce
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Dankner, Nath
