Hi professors,
I am using Freesurfer 6.0 for calculating LGI. I have done 'recon-all' for it. When I ran Monte Carlo in qdec (FWHM=10), it has errors: However, when FWHM=5, It was ok. What led to this result? I don't know why.
Thanks in advance ! Zheng
The FWHM used in the MC simulation is computed from the data itself. The final FWHM is a mixture of the applied FWHM and smoothness inherent in the data. LGI has a lot of inherent smoothness, so the final FWHM is very large. The MC sim table only goes up to 30mm, after that it generates an error
On 12/13/17 2:19 AM, 郑凤莲 wrote:
Hi professors, I am using Freesurfer 6.0 for calculating LGI. I have done 'recon-all' for it. When I ran Monte Carlo in qdec (FWHM=10), it has errors: However, when FWHM=5, It was ok. What led to this result? I don't know why.
Thanks in advance ! Zheng
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi Greve,
Thanks for your help. It is that I only use FWMH = 5 to do my study, it is decided by my data. Can I think it so?
Sincerely, Zheng
At 2017-12-14 00:06:39, "Douglas Greve" greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
The FWHM used in the MC simulation is computed from the data itself. The final FWHM is a mixture of the applied FWHM and smoothness inherent in the data. LGI has a lot of inherent smoothness, so the final FWHM is very large. The MC sim table only goes up to 30mm, after that it generates an error
On 12/13/17 2:19 AM, 郑凤莲 wrote:
Hi professors,
I am using Freesurfer 6.0 for calculating LGI. I have done 'recon-all' for it. When I ran Monte Carlo in qdec (FWHM=10), it has errors: However, when FWHM=5, It was ok. What led to this result? I don't know why.
Thanks in advance ! Zheng
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduhttps://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu