Freesurfer

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

18 participants
30131 discussions

qdec & ?h.sulc
by Juranek, Jenifer 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Thanks for the slide, Nick. Just a follow-up question... So does the info in ?h.sulc contain sulcal depth information wrt the mean cortical surface? How does this differ from the positive values contained in the ?h.curv file? Sorry for the confusion, but the wiki suggests that they are different without going into how they differ. Any additional details are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jenifer

2 1

Re: [Freesurfer] cropping of average T1
by Siddharth Srivastava 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi Krish, It works!! Thanks for the usable binary. And thanks also to Bruce, Nick and everyone else who helped debug it. sid. On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Krish Subramaniam < krish(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > I've put the file here > > ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/fsdev/krish/mri_convert > > Back up your old mri_convert to somethign like mri_convert.bak and put this > in your bin directory. If you could test it out and let me know it works.. > > Krish > > > > On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: > > >> freesurfer-Linux-centos4_x86_64-stable-pub-v4.1.0 >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Krish Subramaniam < >> krish(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> Hi Siddharth >> >> Looks like Bruce fixed the bug. Can you tell me your platform? The output >> of >> >> cat build-stamp.txt >> >> >> Krish >> >> On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, Bruce, >> Can you atleast suggest an alternative to get the >> average volumes, that >> can be used for some VBM in freesurfer. My work is kinda stuck >> because of this error... Or maybe a word or 2 about the progress on this >> front? >> sid. >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Nick, Bruce, >> Just wondering if you were able to find something >> out regarding >> the cropping... >> thanks, >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> just a correction: cropping happens when orig.mgz is operated by >> mri_convert to >> give orig-RO8NormVC .. (not on 001.mgz as mentioned earlier) >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> Thanks for looking into this. I am pasting the dump of mri_info >> on the files: >> 1) mri_info orig/oo1.mgz >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Volume information for 001.mgz >> type: MGH >> dimensions: 256 x 256 x 160 >> voxel sizes: 1.0000, 1.0000, 1.0000 >> type: SHORT (4) >> fov: 256.000 >> dof: 0 >> xstart: -128.0, xend: 128.0 >> ystart: -128.0, yend: 128.0 >> zstart: -80.0, zend: 80.0 >> TR: 1820.00 msec, TE: 2.93 msec, TI: 1100.00 msec, flip angle: >> 12.00 degrees >> nframes: 1 >> ras xform present >> xform info: x_r = -0.9981, y_r = -0.0000, z_r = -0.0618, c_r = >> -1.9246 >> : x_a = 0.0098, y_a = -0.9874, z_a = -0.1581, c_a = >> 50.0265 >> : x_s = -0.0610, y_s = -0.1584, z_s = 0.9855, c_s = >> 48.4401 >> >> talairach xfm : >> Orientation : LPS >> Primary Slice Direction: axial >> >> voxel to ras transform: >> -0.9981 -0.0000 -0.0618 130.7745 >> 0.0098 -0.9874 -0.1581 187.8058 >> -0.0610 -0.1584 0.9855 -2.3123 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> voxel-to-ras determinant 1 >> >> ras to voxel transform: >> -0.9981 0.0098 -0.0610 128.5450 >> -0.0000 -0.9874 -0.1584 185.0682 >> -0.0618 -0.1581 0.9855 40.0535 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> 2) mri_info on orig.mgz >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Volume information for orig.mgz >> type: MGH >> dimensions: 256 x 256 x 256 >> voxel sizes: 1.0000, 1.0000, 1.0000 >> type: UCHAR (0) >> fov: 256.000 >> dof: 0 >> xstart: -128.0, xend: 128.0 >> ystart: -128.0, yend: 128.0 >> zstart: -128.0, zend: 128.0 >> TR: 1820.00 msec, TE: 2.93 msec, TI: 1100.00 msec, flip angle: >> 12.00 degrees >> nframes: 1 >> ras xform present >> xform info: x_r = -1.0000, y_r = 0.0000, z_r = -0.0000, c_r = >> -1.9246 >> : x_a = 0.0000, y_a = 0.0000, z_a = 1.0000, c_a = >> 50.0265 >> : x_s = 0.0000, y_s = -1.0000, z_s = -0.0000, c_s = >> 48.4401 >> >> talairach xfm : >> /share/data0/ssrivastava/processed/RO28NormVC/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm >> Orientation : LIA >> Primary Slice Direction: coronal >> >> voxel to ras transform: >> -1.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 126.0754 >> 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 -77.9735 >> 0.0000 -1.0000 -0.0000 176.4401 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> voxel-to-ras determinant -1 >> >> ras to voxel transform: >> -1.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 126.0754 >> -0.0000 -0.0000 -1.0000 176.4401 >> -0.0000 1.0000 -0.0000 77.9735 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> The fov in both cases is 256. Can i just mention (again), that this >> happens only >> during "make_average_volumes" when the orig/001.mgz passes through >> mri_convert. >> regards, >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nick Schmansky < >> nicks(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> Sid, >> >> What is the field-of-view size? Use: >> >> mri_info orig.mgz >> >> and look for the 'fov' output. It should be 256. What is the fov of >> the input files in subj/mri/orig? If it is greater than 256, that might >> be the problem, but the cropping problem we have seen with that occurs >> during the original recons, not during make_average_subject. If it is >> >256, then the -cropsize256 flag should be added to recon-all. >> >> Nick >> >> >> On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 15:21 -0800, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > Hi bruce, >> > This happens for every orig.mgz that passes through >> > mri_convert at the start of >> > make_average_volumes. The files are 9M each, is there a drop-area >> > where i can upload >> > them? I just made some checks: my orig/001.mgz files are LPS (primary- >> > >axial), while >> > the converted files are LIA (coronal). Can this effect the result? In >> > any case, if you send >> > me the link to the drop area, i will put an example mgz. >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > Hi Sid, >> > >> > can you send us the volume that has this happen? I think it's >> > just a display problem and won't affect anything else, but if >> > you give us the example we'll fix it. >> > >> > Bruce >> > >> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > Has anyone faced this problem before? >> > Is there an >> > alternative >> > to mri_convert than i can try to get the >> > transformation, and then run the >> > subsequent steps? Why are k_ras components approaching >> > zero, and not >> > exactly zero. make_average_surface works fine, no >> > clipping, i have spent the >> > >> > last 20 or so odd hours checking each surf directory. >> > This happens only for >> > the >> > structurals that pass through mri_convert. Tried >> > changing the -oc >> > values, there is a shift, as expected, but the >> > clipping remains fixed at >> > this level (hence more brain gets cropped if the -oc >> > values shift the >> > brain posteriorly. >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Siddharth Srivastava >> > <siddys(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> > Hi bruce, >> > I think the offending command is >> > mri_convert /../../orig.mgz /../../orig- >> > subject.mgh --apply_transform >> > /../../mri/transforms/talairach.xfm -oc 0 0 0 >> > I am attaching the pre- and post mri_convert >> > as tiffs. I have also attached >> > the pial_avg surface in the >> > posterior view, for you comments. >> > The folowing is the screen dump >> > (patient name deleted): >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > $Id: mri_convert.c,v 1.146.2.3 2008/08/11 >> > 22:18:58 nicks Exp $ >> > reading from /../subject/mri/orig.mgz... >> > TR=1820.00, TE=2.93, TI=1100.00, flip >> > angle=12.00 >> > i_ras = (-1, 0, 0) >> > j_ras = (0, 0, -1) >> > k_ras = (-9.31323e-10, 1, -1.49012e-08) >> > INFO: Applying transformation from file >> > /../subject/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm... >> > Reading transform with LTAreadEx() >> > --------------------------------- >> > INFO: Transform Matrix (linear_ras_to_ras) >> > 1.026 0.084 0.079 -9.471; >> > -0.105 1.048 0.228 -84.640; >> > -0.106 -0.174 1.165 -38.874; >> > 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >> > --------------------------------- >> > Applying LTAtransformInterp (resample_type 1) >> > INFO: Transform dst volume info is not used >> > (valid flag = 0). >> > applying the vox to vox linear transform >> > 1.026 0.079 -0.084 -1.205; >> > -0.106 1.165 0.174 9.576; >> > 0.105 -0.228 1.048 -61.401; >> > 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >> > writing to /../../orig-subject.mgh... >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > does this help in any way? >> > >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Sid, >> > >> > have you looked through the individual >> > datasets? That's where the cropping >> > would be, which would have caused big >> > errors in your surfaces. I assume that >> > is not the case. >> > Bruce >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth >> > Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > Hi Bruce, >> > I just realised >> > that the cropping at the >> > posterior aspect is >> > similar to the >> > cropping usually done for the >> > inferior aspect in a saggital >> > view (to get >> > rid >> > of the >> > neck etc..) . Could it be >> > (remotely) possible that the >> > cropping was done >> > in >> > a different >> > orientation (nose pointing up >> > in the sagittal view), and >> > then oriented to >> > the views >> > that we see now? I have only >> > used the basic commands >> > "make_average_subject" >> > with no special flags except >> > --force >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:33 >> > AM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> >wrote: >> > >> > I'm not really sure. Doug or >> > Nick: any ideas? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, >> > Siddharth Srivastava >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Bruce, >> > >> > >> > please find >> > attached a >> > tiff file >> > generated by >> > mri_concat >> > --mean on the >> > original >> > mprages. >> > Here i can see >> > the full view, >> > and i think no >> > registration >> > has been >> > performed >> > as yet on >> > these >> > images... >> > Regarding >> > exploring the >> > dataset for 1 >> > image, is it >> > possible >> > that >> > just 1 rouge >> > image >> > can cause this >> > problem? The >> > clipping has a >> > sharp border, >> > almost as if >> > the >> > bounding box >> > itself has >> > been cropped >> > at that level. >> > the intensity >> > in these >> > posterior >> > slices is >> > zero. >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > On Fri, Jan >> > 23, 2009 at >> > 9:51 AM, Bruce >> > Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > if you can >> > find a small >> > set (1?) of >> > subjects that >> > generate the >> > same >> > >> > image, >> > then >> > maybe >> > you >> > can >> > just >> > send >> > us >> > that >> > subject >> and your commandline >> > >> > On >> > Fri, >> > 23 Jan >> > 2009, >> > >> Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > ok.. >> > i will >> > try >> > that >> > and >> > let >> > you >> > know... >> what other image/logs can i >> > >> > provide >> > >> for >> > >> localizing the source of the error? >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Bruce Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> not really, it seems like there is a bug. If you can localize it to >> > >> just >> > >> > >> one or a few subjects it would a lot easier to track down >> > >> > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> Hi Bruce, >> > >> > >> > >> These are about 28 images. I have not tried fewer...do you >> > >> > >> think there >> > >> are some images with incorrect orientation in the cohort? >> That >> > >> would >> > >> show >> > >> up >> > >> in the other location in the average i think... >> > >> sid. >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Bruce Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think so. How many subjects? Have you tried >> fewer? >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> The surfaces look all right. It happens only to T1. >> It cant be a >> > >> display >> > >> > >> problem, can it?? >> > >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Bruce >> Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> that is strange. Do the surfaces >> look ok? How many subjects are >> > >> > >> you >> > >> > >> averaging? Does this happen if you only >> average one or a few? >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Siddharth >> Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> Hi everyone, >> > >> > >> > >> I am attaching a tiff file showing >> the tkmedit view >> > >> of >> > >> > >> the average >> > >> > >> T1 that freesurfer created >> during make_average_subject. I am a >> > >> bit >> > >> concerned >> > >> > >> about the cropping that is >> evident at the posterior aspect of >> > >> the >> > >> brain. >> > >> The >> > >> > >> individual T1's are complete >> and ok, so i am guessing that >> > >> something >> > >> went >> > >> wrong during the transform >> of the individual brain during the >> > >> process. >> > >> Can >> > >> anyone help me find out the >> problem ? The average surfaces also >> > >> look >> > >> all >> > >> right. >> > >> > >> thanks, >> > >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Freesurfer mailing list >> > Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freesurfer mailing list >> Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freesurfer mailing list >> Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> > >

1 0

Re: [Freesurfer] cropping of average T1
by Siddharth Srivastava 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

freesurfer-Linux-centos4_x86_64-stable-pub-v4.1.0 On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Krish Subramaniam < krish(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi Siddharth > > Looks like Bruce fixed the bug. Can you tell me your platform? The output > of > > cat build-stamp.txt > > Krish > > On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:42 PM, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: > > Hi Nick, Bruce, >> Can you atleast suggest an alternative to get the >> average volumes, that >> can be used for some VBM in freesurfer. My work is kinda stuck >> because of this error... Or maybe a word or 2 about the progress on this >> front? >> sid. >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Nick, Bruce, >> Just wondering if you were able to find something >> out regarding >> the cropping... >> thanks, >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> just a correction: cropping happens when orig.mgz is operated by >> mri_convert to >> give orig-RO8NormVC .. (not on 001.mgz as mentioned earlier) >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> Thanks for looking into this. I am pasting the dump of >> mri_info on the files: >> 1) mri_info orig/oo1.mgz >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Volume information for 001.mgz >> type: MGH >> dimensions: 256 x 256 x 160 >> voxel sizes: 1.0000, 1.0000, 1.0000 >> type: SHORT (4) >> fov: 256.000 >> dof: 0 >> xstart: -128.0, xend: 128.0 >> ystart: -128.0, yend: 128.0 >> zstart: -80.0, zend: 80.0 >> TR: 1820.00 msec, TE: 2.93 msec, TI: 1100.00 msec, flip angle: >> 12.00 degrees >> nframes: 1 >> ras xform present >> xform info: x_r = -0.9981, y_r = -0.0000, z_r = -0.0618, c_r = >> -1.9246 >> : x_a = 0.0098, y_a = -0.9874, z_a = -0.1581, c_a = >> 50.0265 >> : x_s = -0.0610, y_s = -0.1584, z_s = 0.9855, c_s = >> 48.4401 >> >> talairach xfm : >> Orientation : LPS >> Primary Slice Direction: axial >> >> voxel to ras transform: >> -0.9981 -0.0000 -0.0618 130.7745 >> 0.0098 -0.9874 -0.1581 187.8058 >> -0.0610 -0.1584 0.9855 -2.3123 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> voxel-to-ras determinant 1 >> >> ras to voxel transform: >> -0.9981 0.0098 -0.0610 128.5450 >> -0.0000 -0.9874 -0.1584 185.0682 >> -0.0618 -0.1581 0.9855 40.0535 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> 2) mri_info on orig.mgz >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Volume information for orig.mgz >> type: MGH >> dimensions: 256 x 256 x 256 >> voxel sizes: 1.0000, 1.0000, 1.0000 >> type: UCHAR (0) >> fov: 256.000 >> dof: 0 >> xstart: -128.0, xend: 128.0 >> ystart: -128.0, yend: 128.0 >> zstart: -128.0, zend: 128.0 >> TR: 1820.00 msec, TE: 2.93 msec, TI: 1100.00 msec, flip angle: >> 12.00 degrees >> nframes: 1 >> ras xform present >> xform info: x_r = -1.0000, y_r = 0.0000, z_r = -0.0000, c_r = >> -1.9246 >> : x_a = 0.0000, y_a = 0.0000, z_a = 1.0000, c_a = >> 50.0265 >> : x_s = 0.0000, y_s = -1.0000, z_s = -0.0000, c_s = >> 48.4401 >> >> talairach xfm : >> /share/data0/ssrivastava/processed/RO28NormVC/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm >> Orientation : LIA >> Primary Slice Direction: coronal >> >> voxel to ras transform: >> -1.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 126.0754 >> 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 -77.9735 >> 0.0000 -1.0000 -0.0000 176.4401 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> voxel-to-ras determinant -1 >> >> ras to voxel transform: >> -1.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 126.0754 >> -0.0000 -0.0000 -1.0000 176.4401 >> -0.0000 1.0000 -0.0000 77.9735 >> 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> The fov in both cases is 256. Can i just mention (again), that this >> happens only >> during "make_average_volumes" when the orig/001.mgz passes through >> mri_convert. >> regards, >> sid. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nick Schmansky < >> nicks(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> Sid, >> >> What is the field-of-view size? Use: >> >> mri_info orig.mgz >> >> and look for the 'fov' output. It should be 256. What is the fov of >> the input files in subj/mri/orig? If it is greater than 256, that might >> be the problem, but the cropping problem we have seen with that occurs >> during the original recons, not during make_average_subject. If it is >> >256, then the -cropsize256 flag should be added to recon-all. >> >> Nick >> >> >> On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 15:21 -0800, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > Hi bruce, >> > This happens for every orig.mgz that passes through >> > mri_convert at the start of >> > make_average_volumes. The files are 9M each, is there a drop-area >> > where i can upload >> > them? I just made some checks: my orig/001.mgz files are LPS (primary- >> > >axial), while >> > the converted files are LIA (coronal). Can this effect the result? In >> > any case, if you send >> > me the link to the drop area, i will put an example mgz. >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> > Hi Sid, >> > >> > can you send us the volume that has this happen? I think it's >> > just a display problem and won't affect anything else, but if >> > you give us the example we'll fix it. >> > >> > Bruce >> > >> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > Has anyone faced this problem before? >> > Is there an >> > alternative >> > to mri_convert than i can try to get the >> > transformation, and then run the >> > subsequent steps? Why are k_ras components approaching >> > zero, and not >> > exactly zero. make_average_surface works fine, no >> > clipping, i have spent the >> > >> > last 20 or so odd hours checking each surf directory. >> > This happens only for >> > the >> > structurals that pass through mri_convert. Tried >> > changing the -oc >> > values, there is a shift, as expected, but the >> > clipping remains fixed at >> > this level (hence more brain gets cropped if the -oc >> > values shift the >> > brain posteriorly. >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Siddharth Srivastava >> > <siddys(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> > Hi bruce, >> > I think the offending command is >> > mri_convert /../../orig.mgz /../../orig- >> > subject.mgh --apply_transform >> > /../../mri/transforms/talairach.xfm -oc 0 0 0 >> > I am attaching the pre- and post mri_convert >> > as tiffs. I have also attached >> > the pial_avg surface in the >> > posterior view, for you comments. >> > The folowing is the screen dump >> > (patient name deleted): >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > $Id: mri_convert.c,v 1.146.2.3 2008/08/11 >> > 22:18:58 nicks Exp $ >> > reading from /../subject/mri/orig.mgz... >> > TR=1820.00, TE=2.93, TI=1100.00, flip >> > angle=12.00 >> > i_ras = (-1, 0, 0) >> > j_ras = (0, 0, -1) >> > k_ras = (-9.31323e-10, 1, -1.49012e-08) >> > INFO: Applying transformation from file >> > /../subject/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm... >> > Reading transform with LTAreadEx() >> > --------------------------------- >> > INFO: Transform Matrix (linear_ras_to_ras) >> > 1.026 0.084 0.079 -9.471; >> > -0.105 1.048 0.228 -84.640; >> > -0.106 -0.174 1.165 -38.874; >> > 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >> > --------------------------------- >> > Applying LTAtransformInterp (resample_type 1) >> > INFO: Transform dst volume info is not used >> > (valid flag = 0). >> > applying the vox to vox linear transform >> > 1.026 0.079 -0.084 -1.205; >> > -0.106 1.165 0.174 9.576; >> > 0.105 -0.228 1.048 -61.401; >> > 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >> > writing to /../../orig-subject.mgh... >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > does this help in any way? >> > >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Sid, >> > >> > have you looked through the individual >> > datasets? That's where the cropping >> > would be, which would have caused big >> > errors in your surfaces. I assume that >> > is not the case. >> > Bruce >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth >> > Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > Hi Bruce, >> > I just realised >> > that the cropping at the >> > posterior aspect is >> > similar to the >> > cropping usually done for the >> > inferior aspect in a saggital >> > view (to get >> > rid >> > of the >> > neck etc..) . Could it be >> > (remotely) possible that the >> > cropping was done >> > in >> > a different >> > orientation (nose pointing up >> > in the sagittal view), and >> > then oriented to >> > the views >> > that we see now? I have only >> > used the basic commands >> > "make_average_subject" >> > with no special flags except >> > --force >> > sid. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:33 >> > AM, Bruce Fischl >> > <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> >wrote: >> > >> > I'm not really sure. Doug or >> > Nick: any ideas? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, >> > Siddharth Srivastava >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Bruce, >> > >> > >> > please find >> > attached a >> > tiff file >> > generated by >> > mri_concat >> > --mean on the >> > original >> > mprages. >> > Here i can see >> > the full view, >> > and i think no >> > registration >> > has been >> > performed >> > as yet on >> > these >> > images... >> > Regarding >> > exploring the >> > dataset for 1 >> > image, is it >> > possible >> > that >> > just 1 rouge >> > image >> > can cause this >> > problem? The >> > clipping has a >> > sharp border, >> > almost as if >> > the >> > bounding box >> > itself has >> > been cropped >> > at that level. >> > the intensity >> > in these >> > posterior >> > slices is >> > zero. >> > thanks, >> > sid. >> > >> > On Fri, Jan >> > 23, 2009 at >> > 9:51 AM, Bruce >> > Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > if you can >> > find a small >> > set (1?) of >> > subjects that >> > generate the >> > same >> > >> > image, >> > then >> > maybe >> > you >> > can >> > just >> > send >> > us >> > that >> > subject >> and your commandline >> > >> > On >> > Fri, >> > 23 Jan >> > 2009, >> > >> Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > ok.. >> > i will >> > try >> > that >> > and >> > let >> > you >> > know... >> what other image/logs can i >> > >> > provide >> > >> for >> > >> localizing the source of the error? >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Bruce Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> not really, it seems like there is a bug. If you can localize it to >> > >> just >> > >> > >> one or a few subjects it would a lot easier to track down >> > >> > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> Hi Bruce, >> > >> > >> > >> These are about 28 images. I have not tried fewer...do you >> > >> > >> think there >> > >> are some images with incorrect orientation in the cohort? >> That >> > >> would >> > >> show >> > >> up >> > >> in the other location in the average i think... >> > >> sid. >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Bruce Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't think so. How many subjects? Have you tried >> fewer? >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> The surfaces look all right. It happens only to T1. >> It cant be a >> > >> display >> > >> > >> problem, can it?? >> > >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Bruce >> Fischl < >> > >> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> that is strange. Do the surfaces >> look ok? How many subjects are >> > >> > >> you >> > >> > >> averaging? Does this happen if you only >> average one or a few? >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Siddharth >> Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > >> Hi everyone, >> > >> > >> > >> I am attaching a tiff file showing >> the tkmedit view >> > >> of >> > >> > >> the average >> > >> > >> T1 that freesurfer created >> during make_average_subject. I am a >> > >> bit >> > >> concerned >> > >> > >> about the cropping that is >> evident at the posterior aspect of >> > >> the >> > >> brain. >> > >> The >> > >> > >> individual T1's are complete >> and ok, so i am guessing that >> > >> something >> > >> went >> > >> wrong during the transform >> of the individual brain during the >> > >> process. >> > >> Can >> > >> anyone help me find out the >> problem ? The average surfaces also >> > >> look >> > >> all >> > >> right. >> > >> > >> thanks, >> > >> > >> sid. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Freesurfer mailing list >> > Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Freesurfer mailing list >> Freesurfer(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> > >

1 0

qdec & ?h.sulc
by Juranek, Jenifer 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi, Looking for a little clarification. Using qdec to look at group differences in the surface measure ?h.sulc. Large positive values in ?h.sulc indicate greater sulcal depth, right? Large negative values in ?h.sulc indicate something about gyri? Small negative values in ?h.sulc indicate transition from gyral to sulcal or sulcal to gyral? Many thanks for any additional info, Jenifer

2 1

Error while registering functionals to anatomicals
by Krishna Srihasam 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi, I am getting an error if I try to register my functionals to anatomical image (using spmregister-sess command). It is looking for file 'subjectname'. Here are the steps I did before coming across this error. Did I miss anything? step 1 : unpacking data (unpacksdcmdir command) step 2 : run motion correction (preproc-sess command) step 3: created the paradigm file step 4: registering functional to anatomical /************************************************************************** spmregister-sess -s abe_090116 -------------------------------------------------------------- spmregister-sess logfile is /tmp/sk/FSFAST/log/spmregister-sess.19224.log -------------------------------------------------------------- Session: /tmp/sk/FSFAST/abe_090116 ---------------- Wed Jan 28 13:27:34 EST 2009 ERROR: file 'subjectname' does not exist in /tmp/sk/FSFAST/abe_090116 /****************************************************************************** regards, Krishna

2 1

Extract overlay value from fsaverage ROIs
by Christine Ecker 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi, Just wondering whether it is possible to extract values from an overlay created on fsaverage for aparc parcellated regions e.g. the mean of a statistical test parameter for specific aparc ROIs? I know it is possible to extract values for individual subjects on the basis of fsaverage ROIs, but all I would need is the mean for individual ROIs on fsaverage. Thanks for your help! ----------------------------------------- Dr. Christine Ecker Section of Brain Maturation (PO50) Department of Psychological Medicine De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill London SE5 8AF Phone: 0207 848 0947 Email: c.ecker(a)iop.kcl.ac.uk -----------------------------------------

2 1

Discrepancy between talairach coordinates entered in tool bar and time course display
by Dave Brohawn 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hello, I am having an issue with a discrepancy between talairach coordinates I plug into tkmedit tool bar, and what gets displayed when I generate a time course for this voxel. FREESURFER_HOME: /usr/local/freesurfer/stable4 Build stamp: freesurfer-Linux-centos4-stable-v4.2.0-20090128 RedHat release: CentOS release 4.6 (Final) Kernel info: Linux 2.6.9-67.ELsmp i686 NMR Center info (/space/freesurfer exists): machine: seymour SUBJECTS_DIR: /space/seymour/4/users/joshdata/ PWD: /space/seymour/4/users/joshdata When I generated the time course. the overlay I loaded onto the orig volume is /space/seymour/4/users/joshdata/CC-n8_fixed/bold/EMerror/tal-ffx/ASevfix/cespct.bhdr. Registration file is: /space/seymour/4/users/joshdata/CC-n8_fixed/bold/EMerror/tal-ffx/register.dat. The voxel I want to generate a time course for has these coordinates: X -3.96 Y - -20.22 Z - -15.81 When I plug these into the tkmedit tool bar, the emerging time course graph has coordinates X- -4.00 Y - -20.00 Z- -20.00. While the X and Y coordinates are close enough, the Z is off. If I change the Z coordinate in the toolbar to -12.3, it will give me a -15. 8 value for the Z coordinate on the time course plot caption. Is this image legitimate? Which image accurately represents the original coordinates I want to use? Please write back when you can, and thank you, Dave Brohawn

2 1

Old FSL sourcing
by John Kuster 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi, I was wondering if anyone can tell me a version of FSL 3.X that I can source, I need to use an older version that is compatible with the stable3 environment. Thanks in advance! Jake

2 1

cortical thickness maps
by Feng-Xian 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Hi, Thank you for your help before. I finished the group analysis of cortical thickness with QDEC on FreeSurfer and I would like to get the cortical thickness maps with inflated surface on Windows XP. Would you teach me how can I change the cortical thickness maps from FreeSurfer to Windows XP? Thanks in advance! Feng-Xian ------------------------------------------------- Chang Gung University Mail Server Web Mail system By Chang-Gung University Information Center (http://www.cgu.edu.tw/ic/)

1 0

Re: [Freesurfer] cropping of average T1
by Siddharth Srivastava 27 Jan '09

27 Jan '09

Hi bruce, This happens for every orig.mgz that passes through mri_convert at the start of make_average_volumes. The files are 9M each, is there a drop-area where i can upload them? I just made some checks: my orig/001.mgz files are LPS (primary->axial), while the converted files are LIA (coronal). Can this effect the result? In any case, if you send me the link to the drop area, i will put an example mgz. thanks, sid. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > Hi Sid, > > can you send us the volume that has this happen? I think it's just a > display problem and won't affect anything else, but if you give us the > example we'll fix it. > > Bruce > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: > > Hi everyone, >> Has anyone faced this problem before? Is there an >> alternative >> to mri_convert than i can try to get the transformation, and then run the >> subsequent steps? Why are k_ras components approaching zero, and not >> exactly zero. make_average_surface works fine, no clipping, i have spent >> the >> >> last 20 or so odd hours checking each surf directory. This happens only >> for >> the >> structurals that pass through mri_convert. Tried changing the -oc >> values, there is a shift, as expected, but the clipping remains fixed at >> this level (hence more brain gets cropped if the -oc values shift the >> brain posteriorly. >> sid. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Siddharth Srivastava <siddys(a)gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> Hi bruce, >>> I think the offending command is >>> mri_convert /../../orig.mgz /../../orig-subject.mgh --apply_transform >>> /../../mri/transforms/talairach.xfm -oc 0 0 0 >>> I am attaching the pre- and post mri_convert as tiffs. I have also >>> attached >>> the pial_avg surface in the >>> posterior view, for you comments. >>> The folowing is the screen dump (patient name deleted): >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> $Id: mri_convert.c,v 1.146.2.3 2008/08/11 22:18:58 nicks Exp $ >>> reading from /../subject/mri/orig.mgz... >>> TR=1820.00, TE=2.93, TI=1100.00, flip angle=12.00 >>> i_ras = (-1, 0, 0) >>> j_ras = (0, 0, -1) >>> k_ras = (-9.31323e-10, 1, -1.49012e-08) >>> INFO: Applying transformation from file >>> /../subject/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm... >>> Reading transform with LTAreadEx() >>> --------------------------------- >>> INFO: Transform Matrix (linear_ras_to_ras) >>> 1.026 0.084 0.079 -9.471; >>> -0.105 1.048 0.228 -84.640; >>> -0.106 -0.174 1.165 -38.874; >>> 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >>> --------------------------------- >>> Applying LTAtransformInterp (resample_type 1) >>> INFO: Transform dst volume info is not used (valid flag = 0). >>> applying the vox to vox linear transform >>> 1.026 0.079 -0.084 -1.205; >>> -0.106 1.165 0.174 9.576; >>> 0.105 -0.228 1.048 -61.401; >>> 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000; >>> writing to /../../orig-subject.mgh... >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> does this help in any way? >>> >>> thanks, >>> sid. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Fischl < >>> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Hi Sid, >>>> >>>> have you looked through the individual datasets? That's where the >>>> cropping >>>> would be, which would have caused big errors in your surfaces. I assume >>>> that >>>> is not the case. >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Bruce, >>>> >>>>> I just realised that the cropping at the posterior aspect is >>>>> similar to the >>>>> cropping usually done for the inferior aspect in a saggital view (to >>>>> get >>>>> rid >>>>> of the >>>>> neck etc..) . Could it be (remotely) possible that the cropping was >>>>> done >>>>> in >>>>> a different >>>>> orientation (nose pointing up in the sagittal view), and then oriented >>>>> to >>>>> the views >>>>> that we see now? I have only used the basic commands >>>>> "make_average_subject" >>>>> with no special flags except --force >>>>> sid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Bruce Fischl >>>>> <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm not really sure. Doug or Nick: any ideas? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bruce, >>>>>> >>>>>> please find attached a tiff file generated by mri_concat >>>>>>> --mean on the original mprages. >>>>>>> Here i can see the full view, and i think no registration has been >>>>>>> performed >>>>>>> as yet on these >>>>>>> images... Regarding exploring the dataset for 1 image, is it >>>>>>> possible >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> just 1 rouge image >>>>>>> can cause this problem? The clipping has a sharp border, almost as if >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> bounding box >>>>>>> itself has been cropped at that level. the intensity in these >>>>>>> posterior >>>>>>> slices is zero. >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> sid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Bruce Fischl < >>>>>>> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> if you can find a small set (1?) of subjects that generate the same >>>>>>> >>>>>>> image, >>>>>>>> then maybe you can just send us that subject and your commandline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ok.. i will try that and let you know... what other image/logs can >>>>>>>> i >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> localizing the source of the error? >>>>>>>>> sid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Bruce Fischl < >>>>>>>>> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> not really, it seems like there is a bug. If you can localize it >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> one or a few subjects it would a lot easier to track down >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Bruce, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These are about 28 images. I have not tried fewer...do you >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> think there >>>>>>>>>>> are some images with incorrect orientation in the cohort? That >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> show >>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>> in the other location in the average i think... >>>>>>>>>>> sid. >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Bruce Fischl < >>>>>>>>>>> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. How many subjects? Have you tried fewer? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The surfaces look all right. It happens only to T1. It cant be >>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> display >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> problem, can it?? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sid. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Bruce Fischl < >>>>>>>>>>>>> fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is strange. Do the surfaces look ok? How many subjects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> averaging? Does this happen if you only average one or a few? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Siddharth Srivastava wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am attaching a tiff file showing the tkmedit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> view >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the average >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> T1 that freesurfer created during make_average_subject. I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the cropping that is evident at the posterior aspect of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual T1's are complete and ok, so i am guessing that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong during the transform of the individual brain during the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone help me find out the problem ? The average surfaces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>

3 7

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