:33 -0500
> CC: schn...@gmail.com; freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu; remembe...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Covariate for results of cortical parcellation
>
>
> Hi Joost,
> If you want to control for possible global differences in thickness,
> then an appropriate
Hi Joost,
If you want to control for possible global differences in thickness,
then an appropriate covariate of some sort is need. To me, a logical
covariate for a thickness analysis is the mean cortical thickness, as
this is more directly related to the measure of interest than something
like th
it all depends on your hypothesis. If you think there are regionally
varying differences in the thickness and want to be conservative, then
overall mean is a good way to test this, and is probably a more stable
measure than ICV. It's all speculation I think as no one has really
quantified the e
Hi,
you could try including average cortical thickness over the entire
> hemisphere as a covariate. This was Mike Harms' suggestion, and I think a
> good one.
why is it a good one? for cortical thickness: i'm not so sure. my 2 cents
(and i may be wrong!):
- controlling for intracranial volume is
Hi Karl,
you could try including average cortical thickness over the entire
hemisphere as a covariate. This was Mike Harms' suggestion, and I think a
good one.
cheers
Bruce
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Liukarl wrote:
Hello, Freesurfer experts:
I noticed for analyzing the results from autorecon2,
