Freesurfer

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

11 participants
30080 discussions

Recon-all -long
by Juergen Haenggi 11 Sep '08

11 Sep '08

Dear FS experts Thanks a lot for the beta version of recon-all -long. It works fine. Is it possible to use more than two time points in the recon-all -long pipeline. If yes, can I add the third and forth time point of each subject with additional -i options (-i tp3.nii -i tp4.nii)? If no, is there a possibility to build a loop with the command foreach? We tested some MR sequences and recognized that the MR images of some sequences produced a very low number of topological defects (10-20 per hemisphere). Can we interpret the number of topological defects as a quality measure for our MR sequences? Thanks in advance Best regards Juergen ----------------------------------------------------------- Juergen Haenggi Ph.D. (Dr. des.) Division of Neuropsychology Institute of Psychology University of Zurich Binzmuehlestrasse 14, PO Box 25 8050 Zurich, Switzerland 0041 44 635 73 97 (phone office) 0041 76 445 86 84 (phone mobile) 0041 44 635 74 09 (fax office) BIN 4.D.04 (office room number) j.haenggi(a)psychologie.uzh.ch (email) http://www.psychologie.uzh.ch/neuropsy/ (website) http://www.juergenhaenggi.ch (private website) -----------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Historical Freesurfer Question
by Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Hi, I don't know if someone know the answer, however I found this question an interesting one: In Dale99 paper, Neuroimage, the authors stats that all recon process would take 90 minutes. Is there a way, using recon-all script to follow the same steps they used in that paper? -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Paulo de M. Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom

2 1

3 fast questions on freesurfer
by dfwang 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Dear Freesurfer Users, I have 3 fast questions on freesurfer. Any comments are welcome! 1. how to calculate the GM/WM/CSF volume in freesurfer? 2. how to calculat the volume of the frontal lobe? 3. how to convert the file format from .mgz to .mnc or analyze? Thanks in advance. Vincent

1 0

What is included in the ICV value
by Jeff Sadino 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Hello, I am measuring the shrinkage of the limbic system over time for several subjects and need to know what is included in the ICV value in aseg.stats to do this. We are putting our raw scans into freesurfer without any manual edits until after QA at the end. My understanding is that the brain gets registered to the talairach template, the skull gets stripped, and then everything inside the skull - wm, gm, csf, cerebellum - gets included in the ICV (via scaling of the determinant of talairach_with_skull.lta)? Can someone confirm this work flow for us? Thank you very much, Jeff _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/

4 7

Re: [Freesurfer] annotation file and labels for fsaverage
by Bruce Fischl 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

great, thanks Ron. Bruce On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ron Killiany wrote: > I believe Sarah will be over at MGH on friday to begin finalizing this. > > --ron > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > >> Hi Dara, >> >> there is an insula label in the works (*lots* of people have asked this >> question). Ron: any updates on the insula label? >> >> thanks >> Bruce >> >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Dara Manoach wrote: >> >> Thanks very much for the detailed info Karl (and Doug and Bruce)! >>> >>> My primary ROI is ACC, so we'll probably use Aparc with the cingulate >>> divisions. I'll have to review the paper to see if the anatomic bases of >>> the divisions are described. I'm surprised, though, that there is not an >>> insula label, and I'm wondering why it would not be possible to use ROI >>> labels from the two annotation schemes to examine activation in group data >>> (i.e., ACC labels from aparc and insula from aparc2005). >>> >>> best, >>> dara >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Bruce Fischl wrote: >>> >>> for what it's worth we label the cc now explicitly in the aseg, which is >>>> certainly more accurate than the aparc used to be. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the detailed answer though Carl! >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 carl(a)nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Dara, >>>>> >>>>> You can certainly use either one as Doug says, but depending on your >>>>> purposes, one or the other may have some virtues. 2005 consists of >>>>> discrete sulcal and gyral labels with traditional anatomical names so >>>>> there are a lot more labels (which is why Doug describes it as very >>>>> detailed), whereas aparc in general collapses these into summary >>>>> regions. >>>>> >>>>> But it is not a a simple case of lumper vs splitter....For instance it >>>>> seems that >>>>> >>>>> Aparc divides the cingulate into rostral anterior, caudal anterior, >>>>> posterior cingulate whereas in aparc 2005 it is lumped into one >>>>> cingulate >>>>> label >>>>> >>>>> Aparc shows the corpus c. nicely (I think there may even be a >>>>> subparcellation available in development) whereas the cc is lost in the >>>>> medial wall in 2005. >>>>> >>>>> Aparc differentiates the pars orbitalis nicely on the orbital surface >>>>> from >>>>> the rest of the ofc, aparc 2005 does not ? possibly of interest to >>>>> someone >>>>> who is looking at ventrolateral pfc and its neighbors >>>>> >>>>> Aparc includes in its lateral ofc label everything lateral to the rectus >>>>> gyrus, including the central ofc and the (unlabeled) transverse sulcus >>>>> neither of which would be understood as being in the lateral ofc as that >>>>> term is typically used today. >>>>> >>>>> Aparc 2005 shows a view that nicely differentiates the rectus gyrus on >>>>> sagital section from the adjoining, whereas aparc lumps a broad >>>>> territory >>>>> into ?medial OFC? >>>>> >>>>> Aparc 2005 includes parcellation of the Insula, aparc does not and it is >>>>> lost in the unknown medial wall (there has been talk of fixing this but >>>>> is >>>>> this real, Bruce or Doug?) >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps what we need is a ?best of aparc and aparc 2005?. >>>>> >>>>> For surfing purposes you can also ?fool? tksurfer into showing you the >>>>> names of the (typically more more detailed) 2005 parcellations while >>>>> viewing the brain labeled with the aparc labels which at times have more >>>>> detail ? though I have never asked Doug if this will always work >>>>> correctly. >>>>> >>>>> If others have discovered pros and cons in other regions, please share. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carl E. Schwartz, M.D. >>>>> Harvard Medical School >>>>> Director, Developmental Neuroimaging & Psychopathology Laboratory >>>>> Psychiatric Neuroscience Program >>>>> Massachusetts General Hospital >>>>> tel 617-726-8965 >>>>> fax 617-726-4078 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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] annotation file and labels for fsaverage
by carl＠nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Hi Dara, You can certainly use either one as Doug says, but depending on your purposes, one or the other may have some virtues. 2005 consists of discrete sulcal and gyral labels with traditional anatomical names so there are a lot more labels (which is why Doug describes it as very detailed), whereas aparc in general collapses these into summary regions. But it is not a a simple case of lumper vs splitter....For instance it seems that Aparc divides the cingulate into rostral anterior, caudal anterior, posterior cingulate whereas in aparc 2005 it is lumped into one cingulate label Aparc shows the corpus c. nicely (I think there may even be a subparcellation available in development) whereas the cc is lost in the medial wall in 2005. Aparc differentiates the pars orbitalis nicely on the orbital surface from the rest of the ofc, aparc 2005 does not possibly of interest to someone who is looking at ventrolateral pfc and its neighbors Aparc includes in its lateral ofc label everything lateral to the rectus gyrus, including the central ofc and the (unlabeled) transverse sulcus neither of which would be understood as being in the lateral ofc as that term is typically used today. Aparc 2005 shows a view that nicely differentiates the rectus gyrus on sagital section from the adjoining, whereas aparc lumps a broad territory into medial OFC Aparc 2005 includes parcellation of the Insula, aparc does not and it is lost in the unknown medial wall (there has been talk of fixing this but is this real, Bruce or Doug?) Perhaps what we need is a best of aparc and aparc 2005. For surfing purposes you can also fool tksurfer into showing you the names of the (typically more more detailed) 2005 parcellations while viewing the brain labeled with the aparc labels which at times have more detail though I have never asked Doug if this will always work correctly. If others have discovered pros and cons in other regions, please share. Best, Carl Carl E. Schwartz, M.D. Harvard Medical School Director, Developmental Neuroimaging & Psychopathology Laboratory Psychiatric Neuroscience Program Massachusetts General Hospital tel 617-726-8965 fax 617-726-4078

3 3

Re: [Freesurfer] Problem to run FreeSurfer for under one year old baby subject
by Yuan Xu 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

2 1

eTIV measures
by d.g.lawyer＠medisin.uio.no 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Hi, Given the recent debate on the accuracy of the eICV in FS, I am wondering what to cite when using these measures. Do you prefer Whole Brain Segmentation: Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain, Fischl, B., D.H. Salat, E. Busa, M. Albert, M. Dieterich, C. Haselgrove, A. van der Kouwe, R. Killiany, D. Kennedy, S. Klaveness, A. Montillo, N. Makris, B. Rosen, and A.M. Dale, (2002). Neuron, 33:341-355. or is there a better choice? ------------------------------------ Here miracles become marvels, and marvels recurring wonders. -- William Beebe Dr. Glenn Lawyer +352 661 967 244 Instituttgruppe for psykiatri Seksjon Vinderen PB 85 Vinderen 0319 Oslo http://folk.uio.no/davidgl

4 3

Optseq2
by Matt Dixon 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Hello, I would be very grateful if someone could help me with a few questions I have regarding optseq 2: 1) If presenting a given stimulus multiple times (a la repetition reduction experiments), can Optseq2 optimize stimulus presentation and if so, what is the command to specify the number of repetitions per stimulus? 2) Should each run of my experiment use the same or different optimization outputs from Optseq2. And if they should use different outputs, what is the command to specify the number of runs in my experiment? Thanks so much for your time! Matt

2 1

Problem to run FreeSurfer for under one year old baby subject
by Yuan Xu 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

4 3

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