Hi,

we have more motion in the anatomical data between the groups (healthy controls vs patients).
The difference between 5.1 using flt and 5.2. using bbr is not extreme.
If I understood correctly, since we use first recon-all and thatis independent of flt or bbr, any difference musts come how the two algorithms deal with the dti raw data. Is there any motion correction?
The preprocessing steps include eddy current correction but I did not find a step for motion correction.

Regards
Gerit
________________________________________
Von: Anastasia Yendiki [ayendiki@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 20:03
An: Roschinski, Benjamin
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu; Pfuhl, Gerit; King, Joseph
Betreff: Re: [Freesurfer] motion dependent resolution: bbr vs flt

Hi Benjamin - You can see how bbregister works in this paper:
        http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pub/articles/greve.2009.ni.63.BBR.pdf

In short it uses the surfaces from the freesurfer recon (which of course
come from the anatomical) to align the anatomical to an EPI (in this case
the low-b from the diffusion series). Because bbregister uses the extra
information about the surfaces (which flirt doesn't), that's why Doug was
asking if the motion is in the anatomical or the diffusion.

Between 5.1 and 5.2 several things changed in tracula, only one of them
being the default registration method. You can still switch back to flirt
with 5.2 though if you want to check if that's what's making the
difference. The instructions for this are under "Specify the intra-subject
registration method" here:
        http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/Tracula

Let me know if you have any other questions.

a.y

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Roschinski, Benjamin wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> thanks for the answer.
> We did a comparison between the results of TRACULA 5.1 and 5.2.
> When we compared the two different results (5.1 and 5.2) from health controls and recovered anroxia nervosa patients for the first time the results of TRACULA 5.2 seemed to be better than the ones of TRACULA 5.1
> Then we did the same with our acute anorexia patients which are less settled in mri studies.
> In the end the TRACULA 5.2 outputs were not as good as the results of TRACULA 5.1 after we included the acute patients.
> I hope now you understand why we thought that bbr might be more sensitive for motion.
> If bbr is pretty robust in anatomical and dti what do you think about flt. Is it as good as bbr or might be better in case of motion?
> Another question: we know that bbregister needs to have a high resolution image reference for its algorithm.
> Is that the T1?
>
> thank you very much
>
> Benjamin
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu [freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]" im Auftrag von "Douglas N Greve [greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Juli 2013 19:41
> An: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Betreff: Re: [Freesurfer] motion dependent resolution: bbr vs flt
>
> Hi Benjamin, BBR does not need higher resolution. Do you mean motion in
> the anatomical or motion in the DTI? BBR should be pretty robust in
> either case. It is hard to know what might be going on without more
> details of why you think it is getting worse.
> doug

>
>
> On 07/14/2013 08:01 AM, Roschinski, Benjamin wrote:
>> Dear freesurfer experts and users,
>>
>> we visualize white matter tracts of anorexia nervosa patients which
>> are characterized by more movements in mri studies.
>> We have the impression that we get worser TRACULA outputs by using
>> bbregister than flt.
>> Could it be possible that bbregister needs a higher resolution than flt?
>> So summarizing it is more sensitive for motion?
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>>

>> _______________________________________________
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
> --
> Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
> MGH-NMR Center
> greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Phone Number: 617-724-2358
> Fax: 617-726-7422
>
> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
> FileDrop: https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/filedrop2
> www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
> Outgoing: ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/flat/greve/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>