Dear Koen,
Thanks! I will wait for Dr. Augustinack and Dr. Dickerson's answers.
joana
2012/1/26 Koen Van Leemput koen@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Hi Joana,
The smallness of our CA1 compared to other protocols seems to be caused by disagreements in the fields of where the subfield boundaries should be located. I've talked to several experts on this and they all are confident that their own definition is the only "right" one. :-)
As for the atlas our manual segmentations are based on, I believe it's Duvernoy but I'm cc-ing Jean Augustinack and Brad Dickerson who know more about this.
Hope this helps,
Koen
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JOANA BRAGA PEREIRA jbragapereira@ub.edu wrote:
Dear Koen & Freesurfers,
I've been working with the GEMS tool for hippocampal subfields segmentation and have a question I would like to ask you all.
I've noticed that the CA1 sector appears to be quite small compared to other subfields (CA2-3 seems to be the largest), while previous studies suggest that it should be the largest subfield of the hippocampus. Why?
On the other hand, I have read the paper by Van Leemput et al. [2009] and how the subfields were initially delineated and was wondering what atlas was the manual tracing based on?
Many thanks!
joana
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
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.
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer