I have an older dataset with .938 x .938 x 2mm resolution but good contrast and SNR. In previous posts, I have seen recommendations to not exceed 1.5 mm thickness for z-plane. I was wondering if this resolution was equally problematic for volume (aseg) labeling, similar to the surface path.
Thanks, Brian
Hi Brian,
no, the aseg should be fine. The truth is that the surfaces will probably work as well, but the thickness estimates probably won't be terribly good. It should be ok for functional overlay and inter-subject averaging though.
cheers, Bruce
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Brian C. Schweinsburg, Ph.D. wrote:
I have an older dataset with .938 x .938 x 2mm resolution but good contrast and SNR. In previous posts, I have seen recommendations to not exceed 1.5 mm thickness for z-plane. I was wondering if this resolution was equally problematic for volume (aseg) labeling, similar to the surface path.
Thanks, Brian
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Thanks Bruce. I'll give it a try then. Brian
On 1/26/08 10:15 AM, "Bruce Fischl" fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Brian,
no, the aseg should be fine. The truth is that the surfaces will probably work as well, but the thickness estimates probably won't be terribly good. It should be ok for functional overlay and inter-subject averaging though.
cheers, Bruce
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Brian C. Schweinsburg, Ph.D. wrote:
I have an older dataset with .938 x .938 x 2mm resolution but good contrast and SNR. In previous posts, I have seen recommendations to not exceed 1.5 mm thickness for z-plane. I was wondering if this resolution was equally problematic for volume (aseg) labeling, similar to the surface path.
Thanks, Brian
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Brian C. Schweinsburg, Ph.D. -
Bruce Fischl