Hi Bruce,

I tried mri_tessellate which worked well in that the surface seems to follow the aseg projections exactly. Does the volume of this mesh account for partial volume effects? Also, is there a need to run mri_pretess or some sort of smoothing procedure?

For reference, what I am trying to do is import these surface meshes into a Geant4 simulation for proton therapy, and want to make sure I'm using as realistic geometry as possible. Ideally I'd be able to generate a mesh for the whole brain as well as individual segmentations.

Thanks again for your help,
Jonah

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:50 PM Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
no, they are definitely not negligible. It depends on structure geometry,
but I bet for something like the hippocampus a large fraction of voxels in
it are partial volumed.

You can use mri_mc or mri_tessellate to generate a mesh. It will be closed
but may not have a simple topology

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Peter, Jonah
wrote:

> Hi all,
> Thanks for the response. I'm familiar with partial volume effects within the context of PET imaging, but
> wouldn't you expect these effects to be negligible in MRI for structures on the order of mm?
>
> With respect to the mesh type, I'd like to get closed meshes for each segmentation/parcellation.
>
> Is there a way to do this in freesurfer?
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:44 AM Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>       Hi Jonah
>
>       when we compute volumes we typically use a partial-volume model, which we
>       have found improves accuracy and repeatability. That may be the source of
>       your discrepancy
>
>       cheers
>       Bruce
>       On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Peter, Jonah wrote:
>
>       > Hello,
>       > I'm trying to generate surface meshes for different brain regions that can
>       > be imported into a software like MeshLab or Blender (i.e. .STL, .PLY, .OBJ,
>       > etc.). I ran recon-all on my T1 images, and the parcellation/segmentation
>       > looks fine. However, I noticed that when I imported this data into 3DSlicer,
>       > the volumes of these regions did not match the volumes in the aseg.stats
>       > file. In some cases, the differences were quite substantial. I tried
>       > removing all smoothing filters in 3DSlicer but the outcome was the same.
>       >
>       > Do you know what could be going wrong here? Alternatively, is there an
>       > easier way to generate surface meshes from the aparc or aseg atlases?
>       >
>       > I'm using the ICBM 2009c Nonlinear Asymmetric
>       > template (http://nist.mni.mcgill.ca/?p=904) as a generic brain volume
>       > (though alternative suggestions are welcome).
>       >
>       > Thanks!
>       > Jonah
>       >
>       > --
>       > Jonah PeterGraduate Student in The Biophysics ProgramHarvard University
>       > P: 646-306-0848
>       > E: jonahpeter@g.harvard.edu
>       >
>       >_______________________________________________
>       Freesurfer mailing list
>       Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>       https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
>
>
> --
> Jonah PeterGraduate Student in The Biophysics ProgramHarvard University
> P: 646-306-0848
> E: jonahpeter@g.harvard.edu
>
>_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


--
Jonah Peter
Graduate Student in The Biophysics Program
Harvard University
P: 646-306-0848
E: jonahpeter@g.harvard.edu