Freesurfer

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

19 participants
30088 discussions

intracranial EEG position at NYU
by Thesen, Thomas 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Research Assistant Position in Cognitive Neuroscience Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, New York University We are seeking a full-time Research Assistant to assist with cognitive neuroscience experiments involving human intracranial EEG. Main topics of investigation are language, memory, multisensory, brain-computer interface, seizures and others. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, recruiting and scheduling of control subjects and patients, testing and recording from intracranial patients, maintenance of equipment, databases and files, as well as data analysis and manuscript preparation. Candidates who have experience with neuroimaging data collection and analysis are especially encouraged to apply. Other neuroimaging methods employed by the lab include fMRI and MEG. The laboratory provides a unique exposure to both basic research and clinical neuroscience. The position requires interaction with patients and hospital staff and therefore excellent verbal and interpersonal skills are required. Must be well-organized and detail oriented; extensive computer experience strongly preferred, with programming highly desirable. B.A. or B.S. required, such as in neuroscience, psychology, biology, computer science or biomedical engineering. The position is ideal for exceptional candidates seeking to pursue an advanced research degree in neuroscience or a related field. The position is available for 2-4 years and includes benefits. Start date can be immediately or later upon agreement. Please visit our web lab page for more information: http://www.med.nyu.edu/thesenlab Please send resume and cover letter to: Thomas Thesen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Neurology New York University School of Medicine thomas.thesen(a)med.nyu.edu </PRE> <html> <body> ------------------------------------------------------------<br /> This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.<br /> ================================= </body> </html> <PRE>

1 0

Aparc Cutting?
by Allie Rosen 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hi Everyone, I'm wondering if it is possible to use the "cut" function in TkSurfer to delete specific atlas annotations. For example, can I create a label of my specific area of interest, inverse the label to highlight the rest of the brain, and then either cut out these regions or make them transparent? Can anyone help me out? Thank you, Allie Rosen, MSc Graduate Student, Department of Neurosurgery Toronto Western Hospital 14-327 399 Bathurst St. University of Toronto

4 12

Re: [Freesurfer] Whole brain gray matter image
by Douglas N Greve 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

For mni152 space, you'll need to register your anatomical to the 152 brain. You can do this with the freesurfer mni152reg program (might only be in the new version). Then use mri_vol2vol specifying this reg and also making sure that you use nearest neighbor interpolation. One problem is that this does not rotate the directions, so it might not be useful to you. doug caoaize wrote: > Hi, Doug, > > If I want to use the generated gray matter for VBM analysis, I need to > put them into the same space (MNI, or Talariach). Do you know where or > how I can get that ? Thanks. > > Aize > > > > > Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:31:52 -0500 > > From: greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > To: caoaize(a)hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Whole brain gray matter image > > > > You'll probably have to go to 255 or so (255 is corpus callosum). Also, > > for aparc+aseg, everything above 1000 will be GM. > > doug > > > > caoaize wrote: > > > I am saying just look through 1to 98, and remove the IDs that relate > > > with WM,vent, etc. No need to look at the the ID more than 100, > right? > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Aize > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:42:28 -0500 > > > > From: greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > To: caoaize(a)hotmail.com > > > > Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Whole brain gray matter image > > > > > > > > No, that will give you both WM and GM. > > > > > > > > caoaize wrote: > > > > > Hi, Doug, > > > > > > > > > > Should I just check the IDs from 1 to 98 in > FreesurferColorLUT.txt? > > > > > > > > > > Aize > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:27:08 -0500 > > > > > > From: greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > To: caoaize(a)hotmail.com > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Whole brain gray matter image > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, though I think I'd use aparc+aseg for this since the cortex > > > > > > boundaries in the aseg are not great. The easiest way to do it > > > is to use > > > > > > mri_binarize with the --match option. You could list all of the > > > IDs that > > > > > > correspond to gray matter structures, but it is probably easier > > > to list > > > > > > all the stuff that you don't want (eg, cerebral and > cerebellar white > > > > > > matter, CC, hypointensit ies, CSF, etc, (and 0)), then use the > > > --inv to > > > > > > invert it. > > > > > > > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > caoaize wrote: > > > > > > > I need both cortical and subcortical. As I understand, I can > > > extract > > > > > > > them from aseg.mgz, right? ribbon.mgz gives some information > > > too, any > > > > > > > idea? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:44:15 -0500 > > > > > > > > From: greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > > > To: caoaize(a)hotmail.com > > > > > > > > CC: freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Whole brain gray matter image > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want cortical and subcortical or just cortical? > > > > > > > > doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caoaize wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello FS Experts, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to generate the whole brain gray matter > image, > > > I use > > > > > > > > > aparc_aseg.mgz - wm.mgz for gray matter mask, then use > this > > > > > mask for > > > > > > > > > gray matter. Is it correct? What is the difference between > > > > > aseg.mgz > > > > > > > > > and ribbon.mgz? Hope your help. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aize > > > > > > > > > > & gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > Freesurfer mailing list > > > > > > > > > Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > > > > > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > > > > > > > > MGH-NMR Center > > > > > > > > greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > > > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 > > > > > > > > Fax: 617-726-7422 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > > > > > > > > FileDrop: > www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > 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 th e e-mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > > > > > > MGH-NMR Center > > > > > > greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > > > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 > > > > > > Fax: 617-726-7422 > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > > > > > > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > > > > MGH-NMR Center > > > > greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > > > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 > > > > Fax: 617-726-7422 > > > > > > > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > > > > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > > > > > > > > -- > > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > > MGH-NMR Center > > greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 > > Fax: 617-726-7422 > > > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > > > > * -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html

1 0

glm question
by Gabriel Go.Es. 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Dear FreeSurfer experts, I'm doing some group analyses and I'm a little stocked with this: I have Six Groups (2 Factors, one with three levels and the other one with two levels), and one covariate. I don't know the rule for setting the contrasts for an ANOVA and for the interaction between the two factors regressing out the covariate. I've checked at the FS wiki and found the following contrast for six groups (two factors) and zero covariates. Contrast 6 gender-x-handedness.mtx (interaction between gender and handedness) [0.333 -0.333 -0.333 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000] [0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 -0.333 -0.333 0.333] I don’t understand the rule that has been followed. Can any one help me with this? Bests, Gabriel

2 1

qdec problems
by 汪贵宏 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hi,all: I have several problems about the qdec in freesurfer 5.0. Firstly,can somebody explain the function of the buttons in the qdec's third step (display),such as Set using FDR in the False Discovery Rate ,Monte Carlo Null-Z simulation.If I just let these buttons as the default ,is it right ? Secondly, what does the "MAX" and "VtxMAX" and "NVtxs"mean just as follows,which is output from the teminal. Generating cluster stats using min threshold of 2... Found 5 clusters Contrast: 'rh-Diff-Yes-No-Intercept-thickness', 10fwhm, DOF: 21 ClusterNo Max VtxMax Size(mm2) TalX TalY TalZ NVtxs Annotation --------- --- ------ --------- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---------- 1 -3.4159 8928 51.50 31.9 -34.9 46.8 146 postcentral 2 -2.6111 120796 42.30 30.5 -6.5 -32.9 79 entorhinal 3 -2.5302 122287 22.28 35.4 -68.1 43.1 41 inferiorparietal 4 2.3762 145773 21.24 40.3 22.6 20.6 46 parsopercularis 5 2.1491 24852 19.94 4.8 -40.1 71.5 55 paracentral ============================================================ Thanks, Wang

3 2

Resampling Question
by Jeff Sadino 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hello, I have a question about the effects of FreeSurfer's resampling algorithms. The way our pipeline goes is that we convert our DICOM images into .nii.gz format using FSL tools. One of the commands we use is FSLCPGEOM. I was never sure why, but our script would always break without it. Looking into it in more detail now, I see that it is replacing the voxel size information in the Nifti header with the voxel size in the template that FSLCPGEOM is copying from. This is causing all of our data to show isovolumetric 1x1x1 information in the header, even if the voxels really are non-isovolumetric. I have been having a difficult time combining FreeSurfer results across our different studies and I am wondering if this might be the reason why. All of our studies have voxels acquired near 1x1x1 isovolumetric, usually no more than .3mm away in any direction. What would the effect be of pushing data through the FreeSurfer reconstruction pipeline that is not really 1x1x1 isovolumetric? Thank you, Jeff Sadino

2 2

surface tilted
by Nathan Dankner 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hi all, After running a surface through autorecon2 and checking it I noticed that it is tilted up at approximately a 45 degree angle. Is this a problem? If so, how should I go about fixing it? Nathan

2 1

Still looking for an answer: question about weighted regression analysis
by Katie Bettencourt 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Still looking for an answer to this question: So in doing a more complicated version of the analysis with paradigm weighting, I had another experiment where I wanted to test out two different models, 1) that BOLD activity was related to my behavioral measure alone or 2) that BOLD activity was related to my behavioral activity plus a factor that represented the number of distractors present (which is constant across set size) (had a high and low distractor condition, so that this factor was effectively 0 for the low distractor condition and something like 1 for the high distractor condition). I modelled the second my simply adding the behavior measure and the distractor factor together (which means that in practicality, nothing changed for the low distractor conditions between model 1 and model 2, but that the weight was increased by a constant factor in the high distractor conditions between model 1 and model 2). When I ran this analysis, what I got (shown in the attached picture in a group average) was an increase in the amount of activity and area of activity for model 2 (targets & distractors) compared with model 1 (targets only). Am I right in interpreting this as model 2 being a better fit? Or is can these maps be compared to show areas that are a better fit for model 1 and other areas that are a better fit for model 2? I have ROI data on the unweighted analyses that goes along with the idea of model 2 being better, but I wanted to make sure I was intrepreting the activity in this weighted analysis correctly. Thanks, Katie On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Douglas N Greve <greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > Yes, your understanding is correct. People might choose Version 1 because > they strongly feel that it accurately represents the underlying mechanism. > It saves one DoF, but that's not going to change much. I think the problem > with Version 1 is that, for most designs, it forces you to extrapolate > outside of your data range. Few things are truly linear, but they are often > well modeled by straight lines over a limited range. For your data, you > might really expect the response to be 0 at x=0, but it become a very > non-linear curve in that region. > > doug > > Katie Bettencourt wrote: > >> Ok, so just so that I understand (I realize I'm being a bit dense, and I >> appreciate you walking me through this). If I am weighting my paradigm by >> my behavioral measure, then the activity I see with this weighted analysis, >> is areas where we are seeing a linear relationship between BOLD activity and >> my behavioral measure. In version 1:1vs0, this assumes that my linear fit >> passes through xy=0. However, in version 2:2vs0, we put an offset (or a >> sort of y intercept?) into the model so that the data doesn't have to pass >> through xy=0. And you are saying that the larger amount of activated area >> that I am getting in Version 1:1vs0, is because I'm seeing areas activated >> for the fact that there's an increase from baseline but not exactly the >> linear fit between BOLD and behavioral measures, but for Version 2:2vs0, I >> see only the areas that show this linear correlation? Does that sound about >> right? >> >> And if I am right, why would anyone do Verison1? Is it just because if >> your fit does pass through xy=0, you get more power this way compared with >> Version 2? >> >> Katie >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Douglas N Greve < >> greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Katie Bettencourt wrote: >> >> >> You should also look at Version2:1v0. I bet a lot of the areas >> from Version1:1v0 will also show up. You can also create a >> Version3 in which you divide your presentations into a >> low-weight >> and a high-weight (but set the weight=1). Then create >> contrasts of >> low+high and high-low. The low+high should look like >> Version2:1v0 >> and the high-low should look like Version2:2v0. >> >> >> >> So, what would this say? That the extra activity I'm getting >> in Version 1 is just the slope/offset, and isn't actually load >> related data that I am trying to get at (ie. isn't activity >> that is increasing as the number of items the subjects is >> remembering increases, but is just baseline visual stimulation >> activity or something?) >> >> Yes. It's easier to explain if I can draw it out. But imagine an >> xy plot with your weight on the x axis and the fMRI response on >> the y axis. If there is an offset but no change in fMRI with >> weight, then the data points will be on a horizontal line. Now >> what happens if you try to fit that data with a line that is >> forced to pass through xy=0? You'll get some positive slope, but >> overall it won't fit very well. >> >> >> And What exactly to do you mean by divide my presentations >> into low and high weight? What exactly would this be >> comparing? Sorry if I'm being dense. >> >> I mean create a new paradigm file with two non-null conditions. >> Condition 1 would be all presentations with weight < 0.5 (low >> weight); Condition 2 would be all those with weight>0.5. You >> should pick your own weight threshold of course. >> >> doug >> >> >> Katie >> >> >> doug >> >> >> >> >> Katie Bettencourt wrote: >> >> Yes, those are the maps I"ve been comparing. I've been >> comparing it to BV sort of, but that analysis is not >> surface >> based and I"m not used to it, so I can't quite tell >> which is >> more accurate, though Version 2 gives a much smaller >> area of >> activity, which fits with the description of what I've been >> given about what to expect in BV. Attached is two >> pictures of >> the difference I get for Version 1:1v0 (labeled with >> "single" >> in the image name) and Version 2:2v0 (labeled with >> "double" in >> the name). As you can see, Version1 activates a much >> larger >> area than Version 2. >> >> I guess part of my problem is that I'm having trouble >> understanding exactly what these two versions are >> telling me >> about the data and what the differences is. Can you try to >> give me a sort of layman's explanation? >> >> Katie >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Douglas N Greve >> <greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>>> wrote: >> >> I assume that you are comparing maps of Version1:1v0 and >> Version2:2v0 ? I could imagine it going either way. >> If the true >> slope is 0 but the offset is non-0, then Version1 >> will give >> you an >> artificially high slope (and Verion2 will give you >> the correct >> slope at 0, and so no activation). Are you comparing >> this >> to a BV >> analysis? >> >> doug >> >> >> Katie Bettencourt wrote: >> >> So I created a weighted regression analysis to >> look at the >> effect of memory load in a particular brain region. >> Basically, >> I weighted the paradigms by a behavioral measure >> that >> reflected the number of items actually >> remembered (as >> set size >> was increased). As far as Doug told me there are >> basically 2 >> ways to weight your paradigm files. >> >> Version 1: >> Have 2 conditions, baseline (condition 0) and >> all the set >> sizes (condition 1). Condition 1 would then be >> weighted by >> the behavioral measure. >> >> Version 2: >> Have 3 conditions, baseline (condition 0), and >> then I >> represented each presentation as two different >> conditions, one >> with a weight that is always 1 (condition 1), >> the other >> weighted according to the behavioral measure >> (condition 2). >> >> >> The difference, as far as I understand it, in >> version >> 1, it is >> assumed that the response amplitude is ) when the >> weight is 0 >> (ie. that when you are attending to 0 items, brain >> activity = >> 0). Whereas, version 2, tests the slope of the HRF >> amplitude >> vs weight without the assumption above. >> >> However, I'm a bit confused as to the results I got. >> When I >> looked at the data from both versions, version 1 >> provided a >> much higher amount of activation and more areas >> activated than >> version 2. However, I believe version 2 better fits >> with the >> multiple regression analysis that is done in >> Brain Voyager. >> Can anyone give me a better explanation of what the >> difference >> between these analysis models is? >> >> Katie >> >> >> >> >> -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. >> MGH-NMR Center >> greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>> >> >> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 >> >> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> >> FileDrop: >> www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html >> <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> < >> http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> < >> http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. >> MGH-NMR Center >> greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> >> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 >> >> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> FileDrop: >> www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html >> <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> >> >> >> -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. >> MGH-NMR Center >> greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 >> >> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html >> <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> >> >> > -- > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > MGH-NMR Center > greve(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > >

2 1

Calculating Euclidean Distance
by Weisinger, Brian (NIH/NIMH) [F] 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hello, Is there any chance that there is a general table of Euclidean distances for each freesurfer segmented brain region relative to each other. So something like a matrix table for each side of the brain Brain region 1 Brain region 2 Brain region 1 0 12.033 Brain region 2 12.033 0 Thank you, Brian Weisinger

2 1

FreeSurfer 5.1
by Alan Francis 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Hi Bruce, Nick & Doug: Any chance of FS 5.1 coming out in the near future? We have 2 longitudinal data sets that we are holding back till we have this installed. Thanks so much, Alan

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