Surface surgery seems pretty drastic, and my hunch is it will cause bigger problems than it will solve.
Ditto on the remaking the surface from a truncated volume strategy. We're in sync in thinking a border-based solution is the best of all evils. My hunch would be to find something -- not necessarily a sulcus or gyrus, but something that could be clearly identified in both surfaces that would delimit/contain the difference. I haven't looked at your data, but the idea that came to mind is Drawing a border across the posterior terminations of the medial orbital gyrus and gyrus rectus (i.e., border is perpendicular to those gyri, connecting them where they meet the medial wall). Something like that. I have no illusions this could totally pen in your problems, but this is my gut reaction to your problem. (I'm at home today getting AT&T U-verse installed, so I may not be able to check email for a while. Perhaps never, I fear.) On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Colin Reveley wrote: > I have a data set (the same brain you have seen donna, but a new data set) in > which the far rostral tip is missing. > > I'm not expecting a positive answer, given my inter-mediate level skills in > caret, but: > > would it be possible to create a surface from this data, and perform surface > registration of F99 and associated data onto it BUT have the registration > take into account the missing tissue at the rostral end? > > i.e., it knows that the tip of the brain being registered to is missing, but > is present in the brain being registered. > > basically, regions are missing from my data. Could surface registration take > that into account, and ignore that tissue? > > maybe the only way is to convert all F99 data to volumes, cut the tissue off > the F99 mri, remake the F99 surface, put the volume data back on the surface? > > But I'm hoping for a border-based solution. i.e. cut the tip off F99 in the > surface domain. > > It's unfortunate that the tip is missing. It is due to compaction due to the > brain sitting in the fridge for maybe 6 months. > > There are two reasons to use this data over previous data from the brain > which was taken when it was fresher. mainly we have a new DWI set with more > gradients, and that data is really good despite the age of the brain. > secondly, the new data has a structural scan that's perfectly registered to > the DWI, which was not true before. > > any help appreciated. > > Colin > _______________________________________________ > caret-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users _______________________________________________ caret-users mailing list [email protected] http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users
