Agreed. A validated protocol run on a very large group of subjects in 5.3 was attempted with similar data in 6.0 and not only was the longitudinal edit stream nearly non-functional for white matter edits, cross edit performance was disappointing.

I am currently waiting on a response to these potential issues before pursuing further work with 6.0.

Best,

David P. Semanek, HCISPP

Research Technician, Posner Lab

Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Columbia University Medical Center

New York State Psychiatric Institute

1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424

New York, NY 10032

PH: (646) 774-5885

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient.  It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law.  If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail.  PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM.  Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Antonin Skoch <ansk@ikem.cz>
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:23 PM
To: <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Freesurfer] Worse determination of ?h.white with v6.0 in comparison to v5.3 - worse GM/WM contrast

Dear experts,

I am sending just one more example to illustrate issue with white surface estimation in v6.0. See the attached screenshots: In v6.0 there seems to be insufficient contrast in brain.finalsurfs.mgz, so the white surface is leaking at three spots dramatically outwards towards pial surface. The white surface in v5.3 looks much more anatomically relevant in the same spot.

Could you please comment on how to avoid such issues in v.6.0?

Regards,

Antonin Skoch