Oh, sorry, yes I remember now. I guess mp2rage naturally sacrifices some SNR/unit time to get flatter images.  I think Doug (and Jon, now included) can comment on this

Cheers

Bruce

From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> On Behalf Of Caspar M. Schwiedrzik
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 2:26 PM
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] MEMPRAGE vs. MP2RAGE

        External Email - Use Caution        

Hi Bruce, 

In that paper, you reported that MP2RAGE underestimates cortical thickness relative to MEMPRAGE and also has slightly lower reproducibility. 

Since Recon-all does not seem to have built in functionality to deal with the background noise in MP2RAGE, I am wondering whether you still recommend MEMPRAGE over MP2RAGE. I only have regular MPRAGE for comparison at the moment. Thank you, 

Caspar 

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 19:56 Fischl, Bruce <BFISCHL@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:

Hi Caspar

Can you elaborate? What are the issues?

Bruce

From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

On Behalf Of Caspar M. Schwiedrzik


Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 2:27 AM


To: Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu


Subject: [Freesurfer] MEMPRAGE vs. MP2RAGE

        External Email - Use Caution        

Hi!

I was wondering whether the issues with surface reconstruction from MP2RAGE data that were reported for Freesurfer v5.1 in Fujimoto et al., 2014 still persist in more recent releases of Freesurfer, and whether there is information to what

extent they apply to 3T data?

Thank you!

Caspar

_______________________________________________

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_mailman_listinfo_freesurfer&d=DwICAg&c=JeTkUgVztGMmhKYjxsy2rfoWYibK1YmxXez1G3oNStg&r=sgvCAzCi3iTXkTNRRVMpDnC6tu0lnijYpKXIX_UNme8&m=xQ8Cowc6OmPjU8ym3EVysBmtoEVDE6H47AkCObdzVy8&s=cUIYIUPYlPPYzq9yUoARG1sjLpuraBvjMrsd31fx1g8&e=