Freesurfer

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

30132 discussions

illustration of a nifti volume on fsaverage
by james pardon 09 May '17

09 May '17

Dear All, Apologies in advance for the naive question. Could you please let me know what is the best way of transferring a nifti overlay volume to fsaverage, solely for illustration purposes? I think I should start by registering with fsaverage volume and then overlay with Freeview, but I'm not sure what tools from Freesurfer I should use for 1) between subject volume registration (nifti volume to fsaverage volume) 2) fsaverage volume to fsaverage surface. Thank you, James

3 4

White matter volume of a costumized Gyrus
by Josue Luiz Dalboni Da Rocha 09 May '17

09 May '17

Dear Freesurfer team, I am working with calculated volumes of a gyrus (a costumized label). I currently use mris_anatomical_stats to calculate the volumes of my gyrus (in label format). According to the freesurfer tutorial (as I understood), one of the stats outputted from mris_anatomical_stats is the volume of the gray matter surrounding the white/gray matter border (a surface) specified by the inputted label. We are actually interested in the white matter volume (instead of gray matter volume) inside this ROI (a gyrus in our case) specified by the label. I didn't find yet a command in freesurfer from where I can extract the white matter volume of a gyrus from a costumized label. Could someone advise me? Best regards, Josue

3 2

Two stage model question
by Clara Kühn 09 May '17

09 May '17

Dear FreeSurfer experts, I have a longitudinal design with 3 groups and 3 time points. For one group the intervention did not work so for now I would like to look at 2 groups only. Can I do this with the Longitudinal Two Stage Model by looking at the spc from tp1 to tp2 and then looking at the spc from tp2 to tp3? Are there statistical reasons that forbid this procedure of comparing the change across time between groups? Thanks for your help! Clara -- Clara Kühn, Phd Student Max-Planck-Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Science Department of Neuropsychology Stephanstrasse 1A 04103 Leipzig, Germany Phone: +49 341 - 9940 2271 Fax: +49 341 - 9940 2260 Web: www.cbs.mpg.de E-Mail: ckuehn(a)cbs.mpg.de

2 4

Probabilistic atlas illustration
by Julian Jäckle 09 May '17

09 May '17

Dear all In the paper "A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using *ex vivo*, ultra-high resolution MRI" (DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.042 <https://deref-web-02.de/mail/client/_I-kyDlKQj4/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=htt…> ;2015) you have two illustrations Fig4&6 showing the probabilistic atlas and mesh deformation. Can I create such an image myself using freeview /tkmedit? If so could you explain to me how to do it? I've attached an example image Thanks a lot Julian

1 0

Surface area
by John Anderson 08 May '17

08 May '17

Dear Freesurfer experts, I know that the grey or white matter volume measures for the ROIs reported in "wmparc.mgz" can be adjusted for the total intracranial volume.... Is is correct to do the same for surfaces? I mean can the surface of an ROI (e.g. precentral) be adjusted to total surface area? If yes, this must be done for total white right or total left depending on the ROI if it is left or right, correct? Thank you John

2 1

Re: [Freesurfer] perform group analysis on user defined maps
by Ladan Shahshahani 08 May '17

08 May '17

Hi Doug, I asked you about how to perform group analysis on maps created using an index I calculated. You suggested using mri_concat to concatenate the maps and then perform the analysis using mri_glmfit. I then asked about NaN values in the maps and how freesurfer treat these values. You said "It will probably crash. I does nothing to find NaNs and handle them in an appropraite way" When concatenating maps with NaN values, the following lines are printed out in the terminal: *Invalid argument* *WARNING: #number NaNs found in subjid.map.mgh* but it creates the concatenated mgh file. However, if maps from all subjects contain NaN values, it does not create the corresponding mgh file. My question is: Does it mean that it discards subjects with NaN values?? Ladan

2 1

submillimeter resolution
by Annie Duchesne 08 May '17

08 May '17

Dear experts, We are currently developing a MRI protocol for a longitudinal study that will take over in the next 3 years using a Siemens Prisma 3T. We are interested in structural changes within cortical and sub cortical regions, we will also be acquiring DTI and a FLAIR scans. I have seen that for HC subfields .6 mm iso T1 seems to be the gold standard. Being a new user of freesurfer and trying to make an educated decision regarding our scanning parameters, I was wondering if you have any recommendations regarding the T1 parameters. Thank you very much, Annie

2 2

Re: [Freesurfer] Statistical analysis
by Laura Ferrero Montes 08 May '17

08 May '17

Hi Joost, Thank you for the information, that course would be great. However, I would need to know if the analysis I am doing is OK to continue with my study. Joost Janssen <joost.janssen76(a)gmail.com> escribió: > Hi Laura, > > There is an upcoming FreeSurfer course in Barcelona this summer. Please > contact Susana Carmona > susannacarmona(a)gmail.com > > Op 7 mei 2017 19:17 schreef "Laura Ferrero Montes" <lauferm2(a)etsii.upv.es>: > >> >> Dear FS team, >> >> Thank you very much for your help. Just a few more questions. >> >> I want to perform a statistical analysis between two groups:controls >> and patients, using age and IQ as covariates. First I have to test if >> there is an interaction between group and covariate using DODS. >> >> My questions are: >> >> Q1) Do I have to test age and IQ separately, or together? >> >> Q2) In case that there is not interaction in any of the covariates, >> can I use the same FSGD file but do I have tu run it as DOSS? How it >> could be done? >> I would appreciate if you could give me some hints or examples about >> the matrices and contrast files that I must use. >> >> Thank you, >> All the best, >> >> Laura >> _______________________________________________ >> Freesurfer mailing list >> Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> >> >> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it >> is >> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the >> e-mail >> contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance >> HelpLine at >> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in >> error >> but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and >> properly >> dispose of the e-mail. >> >>

1 0

Differences in aseg volumes between FreeSurfer 5.3.0 and FreeSurfer 6.0
by Knut J Bjuland 07 May '17

07 May '17

Dear FreeSurfer expert, I have compared the aseg volume between FreeSurfer 5.3 and FreeSurfer 6.0 with asegstatsdiff from FreeSurfer 6.0 for each subject in my data set. I have enclosed the range for some of the volume. I found the largest differences in subcortical structures, especially in Corpus callosum(CC). I found that FreeSurfer 6.0 CC posterior volume was 525.51 % larger than in FreeSurfer 5.3. Nevertheless, these differences were much smaller for lhCortex, but also here FreeSurfer 6.0 was on average larger than FreeSurfer 5.3. I ran the FreeSurfer 6.0 using the same option as FreeSurfer 5.30. Both versions of FreeSurfer were run on Centos. I am also enclosing a table with mean values along with min and max for differences between FreeSurfer 5.3 and FreeSurfer 6.0 aseg volumes. Best regards Knut Jørgen Bjuland PhD NTNU Left-Lateral-Ventricle 7.4 (-0.13,130.72) Left-Cerebellum-White-Matter 0.64 (-22.9,56.15) Left-Cerebellum-Cortex 7.56 (-10.3,19.17) Left-Thalamus-Proper 0.12 (-16.31,32.42) Left-Caudate -4.25 (-12,33.64) Left-Putamen -16.72 (-27.99,8.3) Left-Pallidum 16.23 (-22.94,84.75) Left-Hippocampus -1.74 (-13.53,15.93) Left-Amygdala 2.29 (-19.28,41.04) Right-Lateral-Ventricle 4.6 (-24.77,102.12) Right-Cerebellum-White-Matter -3.2 (-20.87,49.37) Right-Cerebellum-Cortex 4.88 (-12.99,14.36) Right-Thalamus-Proper 1.06 (-22.34,19.99) Right-Caudate -6.08 (-14.59,6.13) Right-Putamen -12.87 (-31.37,10.17) Right-Pallidum 14.01 (-27.79,89.19) Right-Hippocampus -1.71 (-9.29,12.02) Right-Amygdala 3.74 (-18.6,51.01) Right-Accumbens-area -9.14 (-37.89,61.02) CC_Posterior 22.07 (-47.04,525.51) CC_Mid_Posterior 53.59 (-11.3,537.3) CC_Central 36.77 (-21.36,317.24) CC_Mid_Anterior 24.09 (-18.86,128.31) CC_Anterior 10.64 (-33.71,152.33) lhCortexVol 3.13 (-1.31,12.37) rhCortexVol 3.16 (-0.36,14.2) CortexVol 3 (-4.47,13.26) EstimatedTotalIntraCranialVol 0.65 (-0.05,26.52)

4 15

cortex parcellation
by james pardon 07 May '17

07 May '17

Hello, I was wondering whether the number of subjects used for segmentation and parcellation of cortex has changed from the original 36 MRI volumes explained in (Fischl et al, Cortex, 2004)? If so, how many subjects are now used in Freesurfer for segmenting and parcellating? Can you also explain what pathology these subjects have? Where can I find these? Thank you, James Pardon

2 1

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