Freesurfer December 2018

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

109 participants
175 discussions

Error in running make_average_subject
by Emanuel Alvaredo 25 Jan '19

25 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Hello!, I am getting the following error using the command make_average_subject mri/norm.mgz: could not load norm volume from (null) I have found this page with a path for de issue https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail//freesurfer/2018-February/056008… But I dont know how to apply the path. Can you give some information about this? Thanks! Emanuel

4 11

updateing freesurfer.
by Aaron Tanenbaum 22 Jan '19

22 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution I tried updating freesurfer 6.0 using the command fs_update. I get the following output. > Build is freesurfer-Linux-centos6_x86_64-stable-pub-v6.0.0-2beb96c > > Running this will update some of your freesurfer binaries. > > Shall I proceed? [y/n/Abort]: y > > rsync -zbrlv --progress --suffix=.1539713469_bak rsync:// > surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pub/dist/freesurfer/patches/freesurfer-Linux-cen… > /data/jsp/human2/fcMRI/Aaron/FreeSurfer/freesurfer_6_0/ > receiving incremental file list > rsync: change_dir > "/dist/freesurfer/patches/freesurfer-Linux-centos6_x86_64-stable-pub-v6.0.0-2beb96c" > (in pub) failed: No such file or directory (2) > > sent 8 bytes received 173 bytes 362.00 bytes/sec > total size is 0 speedup is 0.00 > rsync error: some files/attrs were not transferred (see previous errors) > (code 23) at main.c(1655) [Receiver=3.1.1] >

2 1

using tkregister2 to check registration to custom atlas
by lindsay hanford 16 Jan '19

16 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Hello Freesurfer Community, I am interested in seeing how well my subject scan registered to a custom atlas after being run through recon-all. From Freesurfer Wiki, although it is possible to see this in freeview, tkregister2 seems to be the best method as manual edits can be made if the registration went badly. I am however running into issues trying to load the subject image, atlas image, and surfaces in the same space. If I understand correctly, when I ran my recon-all specifying a custom atlas (-custom-tal-atlas RLB700_atlas_as_orig) the transform files (talairach.xfm) are to the custom atlas rather than the talairach atlas. If I load: tkregister2 --s 180523_HTP02168_ANAT5_init2base --fstal --surfs the subject scan, talairach atlas and surfaces load just fine. It is clear the talairach atlas was not used. I have tried running multiple variations of the following, and in all cases, the atlas is in a different space. tkregister2 --mov RLB700.nii.gz --s 180523_HTP02168_ANAT5_init2base --regheader --reg 180523_HTP02168_ANAT5_init2base/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm --surfs Resources used: https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/Talairach_freeview https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/MulitModalIntegration Any suggestions? Thanks, Lindsay

2 3

mris_apply_reg failing for area/volume
by James Michael Roe 14 Jan '19

14 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution ? Dear freesurfer experts I'm running the following commands to register RH area and volume files per sub to both hemispheres of a symmetrical template following Xhemi routines. The commands have already worked for many subs, but are failing to write the target file for a number of others (and all run fine without the --jac flag) #right to left mris_apply_reg \ --src $SUBJECTS_DIR/$sub/surf/rh.area \ --trg $concatdir/rh.lh.area.${sub}.${template}.nii.gz \ --streg $SUBJECTS_DIR/$sub/xhemi/surf/lh.${template}.sphere.reg $SUBJECTS_DIR/${template}/surf/lh.sphere.reg \ --jac #right to right mris_apply_reg \ --src $SUBJECTS_DIR/$sub/surf/rh.area \ --trg $concatdir/rh.rh.area.${sub}.${template}.nii.gz \ --streg $SUBJECTS_DIR/$sub/surf/rh.${template}.sphere.reg $SUBJECTS_DIR/${template}/surf/rh.sphere.reg \ --jac The error is not template-specific as the output is the same using fsaverage_sym Attached is the log file. Thanks in advance! ?- James

3 12

Grey matter excluded from pial surface
by Borges Pereira Ines Isabel 14 Jan '19

14 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Dear FreeSurfer developers, I am trying to obtain adequate pial surface boundaries. Unfortunately, on a few subjects, some grey matter is being excluded from the pial surface, at the temporal pole. I have attempted to solve this problem by adding control points and adding voxels on the wm.gz volume, so as to have FreeSurfer first update the wm boundary and then hopefully the pial surface. As you can see on the attached images, the control points were only partially taken into account and the pial surface was not updated. It would be great to get your support in understanding why this is happening. I am using the following Freesurfer version on Centos: freesurfer-Linux-centos6_x86_64-stable-pub-v6.0.0-2beb96c Thanks! Best regards, Inês Pereira [cid:3140210C-B81A-431D-92FC-E5BD9026A4CE@ethz.ch][cid:36204321-D704-4182-A1A8-B43F8CE27A4F@ethz.ch]

2 2

DKT vs. DK Freesurfer atlases
by Gabor Perlaki 11 Jan '19

11 Jan '19

Dear all, I've found an article comparing DK and DKT atlas based automatic segmentations to manual labels (Klein and Tourville, Front Neurosci. 2012; 6:171, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514540/) It seems that using DKT40 works better than DK in most of the cortical regions (based on Dice). Does anybody know that the DKTatlas related results created by Freesurfer (e.g. aparc.DKTatlas+aseg.mgz, lh.aparc.DKTatlas.stats) are based on the same DKT40 atlas used in the article and whether the DKT40 atlas related results were also created by Freesurfer in the article by Klein and Tourville? Are the Freesurfer created results in lh.aparc.DKTatlas.stats generally more reliable than the results in lh.aparc.stats? -- Gabor Perlaki research associate Diagnostic Center of Pécs H-7623 Pécs, Rét str. 2. Tel.: 0036-30-2084367 E-mail: petzinger.gabor(a)gmail.com

3 3

Questions About Effect Sizes in Vertexwise GLM Anlaysis
by Max Owens 11 Jan '19

11 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Hi Freesurfer Experts, I have two related questions about the measures of effect size that can be derived from a vertexwise GLM analyses conducted in Freesurfer: 1. What is the unit of effect size for the gamma.mgh file created by vertexwise GLM Analysis using mri_glmfit? 2. Based on two previous posts ( https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg52144.html and https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg57316.html) I tried to calculate Cohen’s d in all significant clusters resulting from clusterwise multiple comparison correction of a vertexwise GLM using mri_glmfit. I did this by dividing the gamma.mgh file by rstd.mgh to create a cohensd.mgh file (fscalc gamma.mgh div ../rstd.mgh -o cohensd.mgh). Then from the output of that operation I extracted the mean value in each significant cluster from my vertexwise analysis using mri_segstats (mri_segstats --i cohensd.mgh --seg cluster.sig.ocn.mgh --exclude 0 --o sum.dat). My understanding was that this would yield the average Cohen’s d of each cluster. However, if it is indeed Cohen’s d the effect sizes yielded (between .01 and .02) are so small that they should be undetectable given my sample size (N=1104). This leads me to believe that the outputs are not in fact the average Cohen’s d of the cluster. Can anyone provide any clarification of what the output file of this process means? Specifically, what is the unit of effect size? Thanks in advance for your help! Max

2 3

LME
by Tefera, Getaneh B 07 Jan '19

07 Jan '19

Dear Freesurfer experts, I have three groups g0, g1, and g2. I am trying to use LME model with random effects y-int and time from the base line. Based on the LME tutorial and the questions and answers from Freesurfer support list: Y=B1+B2*t+B3*g1+B4*g1*t+B5*g2+B6*g2*t+ ... The slope of g0 : 0 1 0 0 0 0 The slope of g1: 0 1 0 1 0 0 The slope of g2: 0 1 0 0 0 1 The slope difference between g0 and g1: 0 0 0 1 0 0 The slope difference between g0 and g2: 0 0 0 0 0 1 The slope difference between g1 and g2: 0 0 0 -1 0 1 1) Is this contrast matrix correct to observe pairwise slope difference? In the tutorial the contrast matrix C = [zeros(3,3) [1 0 0 0 0; -1 0 1 0 0; 0 0 -1 0 1] zeros(3,6)] 2) Is it necessary to combine contrast matrix of the pair difference the same as the tutorial? If so, my contrast matrix can be C=[0 0 0 1 0 0; 0 0 0 -1 0 1] 3) How can we interpret the result for this contrast matrix? 4) How can I obtain B1, B2, ... ? [sz1,sz2] = lme_plannedSampleSize(Zi,ZiCol,Dhat,phisqhat,effsz,... dr,pw,alpha,gr_pr) 5) For sample size calculation how can I get Dhat ( Estimated random effects covariance matrix) and phisqhat (Estimated intra-subject variability)? With regards Getaneh

2 9

[PETsurfer] Use of MGX and RBV partial volume correction
by Matthieu Vanhoutte 07 Jan '19

07 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Dear Freesurfer's experts, I tried to use PETSurfer to correct partial volume effect on my FDG PET images, testing both Muller-Gartner and RBV corrections. I ran the commands specified in PETSurfer website and used the two following commands for both MGX and RBV corrections respectively: mri_gtmpvc --i PET.nii.gz --reg register.dof6.lta --psf-col 5.51 --psf-row 5.51 --psf-slice 5.9 --seg gtmseg.mgz --default-seg-merge --auto-mask PSF .01 --mgx .01 --o ./gtmpvc.output mri_gtmpvc --i PET.nii.gz --reg register.dof6.lta --psf-col 5.51 --psf-row 5.51 --psf-slice 5.9 --seg gtmseg.mgz --default-seg-merge --auto-mask PSF .01 --rbv --o rbv.output.orig 1) However, I found that cortical output mgx.ctxgm.nii.gz of MGX correction encompass more than just GM and values at the boundaries of mgx.ctxgm.nii.gz seem to me very high or aberrant. 2) Concerning RBV correction, output rbv.nii.gz seems to me following more precisely the GM ribbon. However contrary to what is said in PETSurfer website, rbv.nii.gz seems to be in the anatomical space (not in native PET) at the resolution of gtmseg.mgz. How then map rbv.nii.gz to the anatomical space when mapping the volume to the surface ? 3) What are the advantages/inconveniences of RBV vs GMX ? 4) Would it be beneficial to upsample native PET to the anatomical resolution before launching gtmpvc in order to preserve the high resolution of the anatomical tissues during partial volume correction ? Could you have a look at and give me back your opinion on these questions ? I could send the associated files if needed. Thank you. Best, Matthieu

2 12

Robust PET signal projection
by Matthieu Vanhoutte 07 Jan '19

07 Jan '19

External Email - Use Caution Dear Freesurfer's experts, In order to have a robust PET signal projection, is it possible compute the projected PET signal as a weighted average of the PET signal intersecting with the surfaces ranging from 35 to 65% of the cortical tickness with a step t=5% ? More weight would be given to the surfaces located near the mid distance between the pial and white surfaces as they have a higher probability to be well located within the cortex (using a normal distribution for example). Thank you for helping. Best, Matthieu

2 5

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Freesurfer December 2018