Holger, you can test how big the average label is with the following commands
cd $SUBJECTS_DIR/averagesubject/label mri_segstats --annot averagesubject lh aparc --sum sum.lh.aparc.dat --i ../surf/lh.white.avg.area.mgh --accumulate mri_segstats --annot averagesubject rh aparc --sum sum.rh.aparc.dat --i ../surf/rh.white.avg.area.mgh --accumulate mri_segstats --annot averagesubject lh aparc.a2009s --sum sum.lh.aparc.a2009s.dat --i ../surf/lh.white.avg.area.mgh --accumulate mri_segstats --annot averagesubject rh aparc.a2009s --sum sum.rh.aparc.a2009s.dat --i ../surf/rh.white.avg.area.mgh --accumulate
Look for transversetemporal in the aparc and S_temporal_transverse in the aparc.a2009s The "NVertices" will have the number of vertices in the label The "Mean" column will have the area. This should more-or-less match your ROI results.
doug
On 04/02/2013 12:42 PM, Klein, Holger wrote:
Dear Freesurfers,
I averaged 42 subjects with make_average_subject focusing on Heschl's Gyrus and finally got the image attached (for both atlases (Desikan = Atlas I, Destrieux = Atlas II).
Gray matter surface calculations for Heschl's gyrus showed the following mean values (in mm^2): Atlas I lh = 439 (SD 60), rh = 323 (SD 46) Atlas II lh = 340 (SD 70), rh = 253 (SD 47)
Heschl's gyrus depicted in the attached image looks considerably larger for Atlas II, but the surface analysis gives me smaller values for mean surface calculation (Atlas II < Atlas I)
How can that be explained?
Thanks in advance
Holger
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer