Dear Antonin,

I haven’t used CIVET myself, however, if I remember correctly it employs several metrics to estimate cortical thickness, referred to “Link”, “Laplace”, and “Average Near”. The latter one is a re-implementation of the one used in FreeSurfer. They are described and compared here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15588607.

Regarding differences between the pipelines it may be easiest to have a look here: http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/ServicesSoftware/CIVET-2-1-0-Table-of-Contents and especially at the references.

Best,

Falk

Von: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu [mailto:freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Antonin Skoch
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Juli 2017 00:24
An: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Betreff: Re: [Freesurfer] Switch FreeSurfer Desikan-Killiany atlas to Civet

Dear Trisanna,

thank you for the reference. However, I did not find any specific information in this paper what specific methods are used in CIVET and what is the difference in implementation between CIVET and FreeSurfer.

Antonin



I believe the cortical thickness measures are taken slightly differently.

This paper might offer some insights.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408913/

Trisanna

--

Ph.D. Candidate

McGill University

Integrated Program in Neuroscience

Psychology

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Antonin Skoch <a...@ikem.cz> wrote:

> Dear Zhiquiang,

> as a regular user of FreeSurfer I am wondering, what is the advantage of

> using Civet instead of FreeSurfer?

> Are there some functionalities in Civet which are not available in

> FreeSurfer?

> Or does Civet offer better performance/accuracy/precision in estimation of

> surface models for some situations/datasets?

> Antonin Skoch

> Hello FreeSurfer Developers,

> I am attempting to switch the Desikan-Killiany atlas of FreeSurfer to Civet.

> But I have no idea to solve the problem. Would you like to give me some

> suggestions or some detailed steps to help me accomplish the tasks ?

> Best wishes,

> Zhiqiang Sha