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 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.
>
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer