Dear Doug,
thank you for the feedback. In this context I would like to ask you to share your opinion on the mri_cvs_register. This tool should be far the most accurate for the registration to MNI, than any of affine-based registration tools, shouldn't be? Are there any pitfalls/disadvantages (apart from huge demand on computing resources) of using this tool? Since you mentioned that you usually use mni152reg, could you share the reason why do not use mri_cvs_register as the preferential tool for registration to MNI?
Regards,
Antonin
I have not actually tested it on the mni152 reg. It might (probably does) work fine. On 2/25/17 5:33 PM, Antonin Skoch wrote: Dear Doug,
I was wondering, why do you prefer mni152reg to mri_coreg for gregistration to MNI? According to help, mri_coreg is also able to do 12 DOF registration. Antonin
mri_coreg is the FS implementation of spm_coreg (spmregister) both of which use normalized mutual info. bbregister uses the BBR cost function and is preferred for all MRI. For registration to MNI space, we usually use mni152reg (a wrapper around fsl's flirt) On 2/25/17 8:49 AM, John Anderson wrote: Dear Freesurfer experts, I see that the tool "mri_coreg" has been implemented recently in Free Surfer 6 and I really wanted to know what are the differences between the registration tools "bbregister", " spmregister" and "mri_coreg"! Kindly: 1. Are these tools similar? if not what are the differences ? 2. Is there any preference of using a tool over the others for specific type of data. For example: A. If I want to register FA map to T1 image which tool is more robust? B. if I want to register FA map to MNI space which tool is more robust? I highly appreciate your input on this!
John
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer