Actually there is a whole Bayesian segmentation on the surface procedure that generates the individual subject parcellation so it definitely won’t be the same as just mapping fsaverage

 

Cheers

Bruce

 

 

        External Email - Use Caution        

Which annot files are you comparing? Some of them (eg, aparc) have an extra procedure where the labels boundaries are fine-tuned, so that could cause the difference. Your command looks right.

        External Email - Use Caution        

Dear Freesurfer Experts,

I would like to follow up on my last email and ask if you had a chance to take a look at it.

Any guidance or feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you for your time!

Best,
Leo

 

Em dom., 20 de ago. de 2023 às 23:41, Leonardo Cardoso Saraiva <leonardo.saraiva@usp.br> escreveu:

Dear Freesurfer Experts,

I am using .annot files to extract parcellated vertex-wise morphometric features from surf files (e.g., area value from ?h.area file). For each vertex, I want to determine the parcel it belongs to and its associated morphometric features. During this process, I exclude vertices labeled as ‘unknown’ or ‘medial wall’.

In addition to the aparc parcellation, I am also using other parcellations computed on fsaverage. Therefore, I need to resample these parcellations onto native surfaces. To do this, I am using commands such as the one below:

 

mri_surf2surf --srcsubject fsaverage \
           --sval-annot ${SUBJECTS_DIR}/fsaverage/label/lh.test\
           --trgsubject sub-test \
           --trgsurfval ${SUBJECTS_DIR}/sub-test/label/lh.test \
           --hemi lh

 

As a sanity check, I used the above command to resample the aparc parcellation onto native surfaces (which is already done by recon-all). However, when I use the .annot files generated by the above command to extract morphometric features from surf files, I get a different number of vertices than when I use the .annot files generated by recon-all. Is this behavior expected? Am I doing something wrong?

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best, 

Leo

 

_______________________________________________

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer