External Email - Use Caution
Perhaps erosion was suggested because of partial voluming in your fMRI voxels.
Peace,
Matt.
From: <freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edumailto:freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> on behalf of Ben M <fmri.mri@gmail.commailto:fmri.mri@gmail.com> Reply-To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edumailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Date: Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:27 PM To: "freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edumailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu" <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edumailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Subject: [Freesurfer] WM segmentation
External Email - Use Caution
Hi, I would like to create a mask of the WM for fMRI analysis. I read a previous post in which it was suggested to get the wm segmentation and erode it, since the result will be exclusively WM. My question is why is this so? Why can I assume that getting the WM mask from the aseg file will almost certainly get me high probability WM, >0.9 for example? In most segmentation algorithms we get posterior probabilities at each voxel, so that we can then select voxels with posterior probabilities >0.90 for example. Why is freesurfer's WM segmentation so accurate that we do not need posterior probabilities? Are these very high probabilities somehow already coded in freesurfer's segmentation algorithm? Thanks, Ben
________________________________ The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.