On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bruce Fischl
<fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Michael
that's a good thought. Let me talk to Nick, and see if we should default to it and have a 1.5T flag instead
Bruce
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Michael Waskom wrote:
Yes, that flag still works in 5.1.
Bruce, think these parameters could be default in 5.2? It's a long extra
flag (that is, I imagine, someone arcane knowledge) for what has to be the
overwhelmingly modal field strength these days.
Sorry to hijack, but this would be nice!
Cheers,
Michael
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Mehul Sampat <mehul.sampat@ieee.org>
wrote:
Hi Thomas,
The following message posted by Michael Harms
http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg20991.html
has some very useful options. I recently noticed that they help us
with a very similar problem...
Also, I recall that for FS v5.0 there was a flag -nuintensitycor-3T
for "optimal parameters for nu_correct for 3T scans"
(as described in release notes for v5.0.)
Bruce, the -nuintensitycor-3T is still available in v5.1 right?
If yes, then we could combine the options the two set of options and
run recon-all with "-b 20 -n 5 and -nuintensitycor-3T" for
the 3T scans? Would this be reasonable or does this combination not
recommended ?
Thanks
Mehul
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Thomas Fink
<mr.thomas.fink@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hey Experts,
As you can see from the picture, the autorecon does not
work properly (for WM/Pial surfs) with my files:
Especially in the temporal lobes.
I am working with the SPGR files of a 3T GE Machine.
Is there any way to optimize the autorecon results for
SPGRs?
(Except the lavish application of CPs.)
Best regards
Thomas