Hi Jenny,
the ?h.white is pretty much our final say one where the gray/white boundary is, and is usually substantially more accurate than the wm.mgz. Your dataset has a lot of motion artifact, but mostly looks okay except for the superior temporal gyrus, which has been chopped. You'll need to edit this back in. What version are you running? As for editing, an incorrect white surface can lead to an incorrect pial one, so you're probably better off rerunning things before trying to edit the pial. Also, the rerunning after pial editing is fast relative to the whole process, just a couple of hours I think.
cheers, Bruce
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Jenny Kirchner wrote:
Hi, I am working on a case for which I have run autorecon 2. Edits seem necessary on both the pial surface and the white matter segmentation. I am now wondering if it is better to first do the white matter edits and then run autorecon 2 again to see if the pial surface errors improved or if it is more economic to do the pial surface edits in the same step.
I also have a question concerning the differences in segmentation between the wm.mgz and the ?h.white. I am attaching two screenshots for you to be able to see it. The wm.mgz is showing white matter, which in the lh.white (loaded on top of the brainmask.mgz) is not defined as white matter as shown by the yellow line. (See temporal pole of the left hemisphere). I am wondering which of the both segmentations is correct, the wm.mgz version or the lh.white version and where exactely I have to do the edits.
Thanks a lot for your help! Best,
Jenny