Holger, you can test how big the average label is with the following
commands
cd $SUBJECTS_DIR/averagesubject/label
mri_segstats --annot averagesubject lh aparc --sum sum.lh.aparc.dat --i
../surf/lh.white.avg.area.mgh --accumulate
mri_segstats --annot averagesubject rh aparc --sum sum.rh.aparc.
Yea, the appearance of the average subject pial surface can be very
different depending up on the input subjects. The xyz for a pial vertex
are just the average mni305 xyz for that vertex averaged over the input
subjects. Since it is dependent on a 12DOF transform, it will not
accurately repres
the average subject is constructed by specifically trying to normalize
out differences in folding so I wouldn't try to infer anything from it
cheers
Bruce
On
Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Klein, Holger wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the quick reply. I took the individual surface values from every
subject'
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the quick reply. I took the individual surface values from every
subject's aseg-file and calculated the mean. Visualization was made in
tksurfer with the average subject.
Thus, I am still wondering about this discrepancy.
Any other hints?
Thanks, H
2013/4/2 Bruce Fischl
Hi Holger
how did you calculate the surface area? And how are you visualizing it? I
wouldn't use the surface area of the average subject for anything other
than visualization as the coordinate system is not linear. You need to
compute the surface area in the individual subject coordinates or t
