Hi Doug,
On 28. Feb 2006, at 17:04 Uhr, Doug Greve wrote:
So if you exclude that one image, the average of the rest of the 9 look ok?
Yes, the average of the remaining scans does look ok. And the offender does not look different even at closer inspection... strange
Ahoi Sebastian
Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi Doug,
On 28. Feb 2006, at 16:27 Uhr, Doug Greve wrote:
have you looked at all the images to assure that none have any artifacts?
I had a relative quick look, without scrutinizing them, they lookokay and very similar, but I will redo this.
Have you tried a subset to see if that will work? All the images have the same geometry, I presume?
Well yeah I can exclude the offending volume, even though it wasscanned with the same parameters and no giant artifacts.
Ahoi Sebastian
doug
Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Dear All,
I encounter some problems with mri_motion_correct2. I scanned 10 structurals of a monkey that was not moved or moving during the whole scan time. Now I expect mri_motion_correct2 to produce nice averages of my ten runs, but it insists upon displacing/rotating some of my scans. That is in one "beautiful" example a single run's volume was turned by 90 degrees. Are there any expert options for mri_motion_correct2 to clue it in on the expected scan quality? A before I forget centos4_x86_64-dev20060224 is the version I am trying.
Ahoi Sebastian
-- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
-- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting