Hi Jeff,
I personally like the idea of using average thickness as a covariate to
control for a reduction in "whole brain" thickness, and have used that
approach in a paper. If the Abstract that you mentioned indicated that
this is flawed, I'd be curious to know what the reason was...
cheers,
-MH
> _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@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.
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 21:00 -0400, Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Jeff
>
> yes, I think this is still our recommendation for thickness, although
> perhaps David Salat can verify. As far as surface area, you might get
> Anderson Winkler to send you a preprint of his newly accepted paper on
> surface area comparisons and how to do them properly. I would have said
> normalize by the 2/3 root of ICV (maybe David can comment on this as well)
>
> cheers
> Bruce
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jeff Sadino wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > For cortical thickness normalizations, Bruce said not to normalize based on a HBM
> > abstract
> > (http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg06646.html). Is
> > this still the consensus?
> >
> > For cortical volume, it is pretty standard to normalize to eTIV.
> >
> > For cortical surface area (jacobian), I couldn't find any information on the wiki.
> > Does anyone have any recommendations?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Jeff
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer