On 6/12/13 7:03 AM, Tudor Popescu wrote:
>
> Sorry Doug, wasn't sure whether you'd seen my last reply to this..
>
> On 6 Jun 2013 21:37, "Tudor Popescu" <tudor3(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:tudor3@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Doug,
>
>
>
> So if I want to use the study-specific "average" subject
> surface with mri_surf2surf, rather than the generic
> "fsaverage" one, how can this be done given that the
> required ls.white file only exists in the latter but not
> in the former? Can I just rename (or duplicate) ls.white
> into ls.white_avg?
>
> You can copy it or create a symbolic link.
>
> So it is OK to copy the required lh.white file from the generic
> average subject "fsaverage" and apply mri_surf2surf upon the
> study-specific average subject ("average")? It still seems to me
> that "average" should have its own (different) lh.white...
>
Yes it should. Did make_average_subject not create it?
>
>
>
> Shouldn't the input to mri_glmfit be the output of
> mri_surf2surf? In the group tutorial, the former is
> "lh.gender_age.thickness.10.mgh" while the latter is
> "lh.gender_age.thickness.10B.mgh". Or should it just be
> the unsmoothed output of mris_preproc?
>
> Yes, I can't remember why I put the "B" there, maybe to keep
> people from overwriting lh.gender_age.thickness.10.mgh during
> the tutorial and having to wait the 10min or so for it to get
> recreated.
>
> But if all these commands transform the same file (output of
> mris_preproc becomes input of mri_surf2surf, which then feeds into
> mri_glmfit), then why is it still necessary to keep intact the
> original lh.gender_age.thickness.10.mgh, when all you need for the
> group analysis is the mri_surf2surf'd version?
>
Sorry, I'm lost here. What are the names of the files?
>
>
>
> Assuming the label files (corresponding to my ROI, and
> extracted from the Destrieux atlas) are different for each
> subject, and given mri_glmfit is called just once, for all
> subjects, which label file (corresponding to what subject)
> should I point it to?
>
> You need to create the label in the average subject. There is
> a Destrieux atlas there.
>
> Again, by "average subject" do you mean here the generic one
> (fsaverage) or the study-specific one (average)? Should the former
> be used at any point of a group analysis, if the latter exists?
>
If you are doing your group analysis on a custom average, then do not
use fsaverage at any point.
doug