It might indeed help someone. I was surprised to see it worked, until I saw what you did to make it work. Clever.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Colin Reveley wrote: > Caret will segment macaque (and presumably human, with a big computer) data > at 0.25mm, and the surface does reflect the anatomy (or the MRI) better than > downsampled to 0.5mm. > > In doing this I was motivated by issues with freesurfer and the position of > the cerbellum and hindbrain in my ex-vivo data. > > but since I had the volume I thought I'd see if caret/surefit works. > > I removed the entire cerebellum, and everything from the top of the pons down > from the niftii. > > This was semi manual - I made an initial mask by making fidicual surfaces of > each hemisphere in caret from 0.5mm downsampled, expanding them (not > inflating them) so that they look sort of pial and then doing surface -> > segmentation volume (to the entire 0.25mm original volume) > > I used those, combined, as an ROI in the "mango" program. I tweaked that (1-6 > hours, depending on level of perfectionism) and removed the CB and hindbrain. > > then I made a caret surface in the usual way, all segmentation options on > except "remove hindbrain", from the 0.25 data without CB. > > I used a Linux computer with 24GB of RAM. You need that. > > Obviously it takes a long time to run, but it does look good. > > it is handy for surface <-> volume, possibly also the extra accuracy might > help with registration. In my data for example the central sulcus is wide > with an ill defined fundus at 0.5mm dowsampled. at 0.25 the course of the > fundus is very clear and distinct. > > hope this helps someone else too. > > > > On 29 October 2011 18:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send caret-users mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of caret-users digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: caret-users Digest, Vol 97, Issue 4 (Donna Dierker) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Donna Dierker <[email protected]> > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:46:01 -0500 > Subject: Re: [caret-users] caret-users Digest, Vol 97, Issue 4 > Also have a look at this: > > caret_command -spec-file-change-resolution > Change (typically reduce) the resolution of the surface > the list below, a close resolution is found by dividing > will not be copied. Any absolute or > data files in the spec file will be an ABSOLUTE path > since an absolute path is used to specify the spec file. > the data files in the spec file will be an absolute path > > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Colin Reveley wrote: > > > thanks donna - I'll try that. > > > > for the record, looking at it, I think: > > > > if the goal is to have a surface with the number of nodes you'd get from > > 0.25 data, in order to make volume <-> surface transfers (e.g. metric data) > > more accurate then: > > > > I think making the surface at 0.5, then upsampling the segmentation vol > > that results, then generating a hi-res surface from the anatomical volume > > and the upsampled segmentation (tweaked if one wants) is good enough. > > > > that is, I think the surface at 0.5 is good. so it's just about increasing > > node to voxel correspondence for the hi res volume. > > > > for that, I think maybe one does not need to segment at 0.25, although it > > might be nice, and more accurate. > > > > I have done this. I think It's "good enough". > > > > Colin > > > > On 26 October 2011 12:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send caret-users mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of caret-users digest..." > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: caret-users Digest, Vol 97, Issue 2 (Donna Dierker) > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Donna Dierker <[email protected]> > > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" > > <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:12:08 -0500 > > Subject: Re: [caret-users] caret-users Digest, Vol 97, Issue 2 > > I'd have to step through the source (which is available) to be sure, but I > > think not only do you need to check the hindbrain, but also it needs to > > find an object of decent size to disconnect -- something it thinks is the > > cerebellum, thresholded -- to be happy. Else you'll get an error about > > disconnecting hindbrain failing. > > > > I can't quickly point to the Caret source; you'd have to download it and > > find it. But here is an old SureFit script that covered the logic: > > > > http://surefit.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/surefit/SureFitSrc/SureFitPython/Scripts.py?revision=1.13&view=markup > > > > Search for SegmentCerebralWhiteMatter and DISCONNECT HINDBRAIN SECTION. > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Colin Reveley wrote: > > > > > ok - > > > > > > yes, it does seem as if freesurfer, then freesurfer to caret (there is a > > > recent VE tutorial on that, by which I mean a freesurfer to F99 tutorial, > > > although it doesn;t help with freesurfer itself. It does give nice > > > landmarks though.) is an option. > > > > > > Equally, it seems as though removing the hindbrain and cerebellum and > > > then running segmentation with those options unchecked might work. > > > > > > an upsampled version of the cerebral hull segmentation generated at 0.5mm > > > should facilitate that, and make it only work rather than loads of work. > > > > > > but are there other issues than hindbrain, eye stuff, cut CC? > > > > > > is it worth trying to remove hindbrain manually? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 October 2011 10:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Send caret-users mailing list submissions to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > [email protected] > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of caret-users digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. Re: hi res macaque (wolf zinke) > > > 2. Re: hi res macaque (Donna Dierker) > > > 3. Re: hi res macaque (Donna Dierker) > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: wolf zinke <[email protected]> > > > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" > > > <[email protected]> > > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:54:24 +0200 > > > Subject: Re: [caret-users] hi res macaque > > > Hi, > > > > > > I had a similiar question a while ago, that was related to your issues. > > > At this time there was no 64 bit version of caret available, and hence I > > > ran into memory troubles with a high resolution monkey file (do you use > > > the 64 bit version of caret?). > > > > > > However, Donna Dierker gave me some pointers, why it would be problematic > > > to use a voxel size different from 0.5 mm. I am not sure, if this is > > > still true, but that might be a reason for your problem. I myself had > > > also the impression, that for the segmentation a resolution of 0.25 mm > > > would be very beneficial. > > > > > > I hope that this information helps, > > > wolf > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Thanks for the clarification. Currently,I am running caret on the 0.5 mm > > >> resolution and it overall gives good results, but fails in occipital > > >> regions. However, with your information I have a good reason to stick to > > >> the 0.5 mm resolution - makes the manual correction faster anyway. > > >> > > >> thanks for the reply, > > >> wolf > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 01/28/2010 04:03 PM, Donna Dierker wrote: > > >> Setting aside the memory/64-bit question, there are assumptions built > > >> into the SureFit algorithm that assume voxdims for monkeys around > > >> 0.5-0.75mm cubed. For example, there are routines in the hindbrain > > >> removal that are based on number of *slices* from the AC, and if you > > >> double the resolution, those will be off by a factor of two. In short, > > >> it will fail. > > >> > > >> Try downsampling to 0.5 and making sure you crop to left and right hems. > > >> If the problems persist, upload your anatomical volume here: > > >> > > >> http://pulvinar.wustl.edu/cgi-bin/upload.cgi > > >> > > >> On 01/28/2010 07:30 AM, wolf zinke wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> Sorry that I did not reply directly to this thread, but I did not find > > >>> any option for this reply. > > >>> > > >>> Is there a reason why caret is not build for 64 bit systems? I tried to > > >>> run a segmentation on macaque data with 0.25 mm voxel size, hoping to > > >>> get better results due to the resoltion. However, Caret threw an error > > >>> about insufficient memory, which first puzzled me since the PC got > > >>> 32GB. But than I realized that due to the 32 bit, Caret is not able to > > >>> address more than 4GB of the RAM, right? > > >>> > > >>> cheers, > > >>> wolf > > > > > > > > > On 25/10/11 08:30, Colin Reveley wrote: > > >> I wonder if the bits of spine and the affine to to (deskulled, > > >> upsampled) F99 are an issue. > > >> > > >> I don't recall, but it's hugely likely I tried with rigid body too, i.e. > > >> without the bit cut off at bottom. > > >> > > >> On 25 October 2011 00:53, Colin Reveley <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello. > > >> > > >> I have macaque data that is 0.25mm. I like that. I can do things with it > > >> that are more than cosmetic. > > >> > > >> The data was taken with a fancy brukker, and the contrast is very good > > >> from the sequence used. so good I wonder if it's a problem (it's a > > >> FLASH_MTR - it does correlate to T1 really closely, but contrast GM-WM > > >> is clearer. and there may be differences.) > > >> > > >> Thus far, I've been downsampling to 0.5 to make CARET surfaces. > > >> > > >> I'm beginning to suspect that, for my project, there is profit in a > > >> surface made at 0.25, with many nodes. > > >> > > >> what I am interested in is the really quite small region (in absolute > > >> terms) that was the subject of the paper by lewis and van essen in 2000. > > >> > > >> even though the F99 atlas does not have 300,000 nodes the paint, border > > >> and metric data are scalable and my own data would indeed support a > > >> hi-res surface, and benefit from it. > > >> > > >> I've got RAM. > > >> > > >> but I never managed to get far with 0.25. > > >> > > >> segmentation fails with hindbrain at any resolution below 0.5. > > >> > > >> I didn't mind. But now I think (I really do) I have a good reason to > > >> seek surface construction directly from my structural data at 0.25mm. > > >> > > >> So: is it possible? caret_command ... -res=X ? > > >> > > >> my data is ex-vivo. And probably no more than 1% of nonGM or nonWM > > >> voxels are nonzero. no ventricles. nothing. I did that. A mistake maybe. > > >> > > >> If I segment at 0.5, upsample to 0.25 and generate a surface with my > > >> data it works. CARET can make the surface. > > >> > > >> but segmentation does not work. > > >> > > >> appreciate help. > > >> > > >> Colin > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> caret-users mailing list > > >> > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Donna Dierker <[email protected]> > > > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" > > > <[email protected]> > > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:33:07 -0500 > > > Subject: Re: [caret-users] hi res macaque > > > Sorry I don't have time to read this more carefully, but I'm swamped this > > > week. > > > > > > But the quick scan leads me to believe this is an issue with you trying > > > to segment monkey data at a resolution above 0.5mm. > > > > > > The problem is that some of the routines (e.g., especially > > > eye/skull/hindbrain removal) depend on the number of slices away from the > > > AC something is. If the number of slices is twice what it expects, it > > > won't work. You can turn off eye/skull removal, but as you already know, > > > de-checking hindbrain just makes it fail. > > > > > > Caret's segmentation has its limits, and this is now where our > > > development effort is focused these days. Sorry. > > > > > > I know some people have gotten Freesurfer to segment monkey data, but I > > > suspect there are tricks/tweaks, and I do not know them. I don't know > > > how the talairach.xfm stuff (and that which depends on it) works, for > > > example. Obviously MNI305 won't work as a target. > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:54 AM, wolf zinke wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I had a similiar question a while ago, that was related to your issues. > > > > At this time there was no 64 bit version of caret available, and hence > > > > I ran into memory troubles with a high resolution monkey file (do you > > > > use the 64 bit version of caret?). > > > > > > > > However, Donna Dierker gave me some pointers, why it would be > > > > problematic to use a voxel size different from 0.5 mm. I am not sure, > > > > if this is still true, but that might be a reason for your problem. I > > > > myself had also the impression, that for the segmentation a resolution > > > > of 0.25 mm would be very beneficial. > > > > > > > > I hope that this information helps, > > > > wolf > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the clarification. Currently,I am running caret on the 0.5 > > > >> mm resolution and it overall gives good results, but fails in > > > >> occipital regions. However, with your information I have a good reason > > > >> to stick to the 0.5 mm resolution - makes the manual correction faster > > > >> anyway. > > > >> > > > >> thanks for the reply, > > > >> wolf > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 01/28/2010 04:03 PM, Donna Dierker wrote: > > > >> Setting aside the memory/64-bit question, there are assumptions built > > > >> into the SureFit algorithm that assume voxdims for monkeys around > > > >> 0.5-0.75mm cubed. For example, there are routines in the hindbrain > > > >> removal that are based on number of *slices* from the AC, and if you > > > >> double the resolution, those will be off by a factor of two. In > > > >> short, it will fail. > > > >> > > > >> Try downsampling to 0.5 and making sure you crop to left and right > > > >> hems. If the problems persist, upload your anatomical volume here: > > > >> > > > >> http://pulvinar.wustl.edu/cgi-bin/upload.cgi > > > >> > > > >> On 01/28/2010 07:30 AM, wolf zinke wrote: > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> Sorry that I did not reply directly to this thread, but I did not > > > >>> find any option for this reply. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is there a reason why caret is not build for 64 bit systems? I tried > > > >>> to run a segmentation on macaque data with 0.25 mm voxel size, hoping > > > >>> to get better results due to the resoltion. However, Caret threw an > > > >>> error about insufficient memory, which first puzzled me since the PC > > > >>> got 32GB. But than I realized that due to the 32 bit, Caret is not > > > >>> able to address more than 4GB of the RAM, right? > > > >>> > > > >>> cheers, > > > >>> wolf > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25/10/11 08:30, Colin Reveley wrote: > > > >> I wonder if the bits of spine and the affine to to (deskulled, > > > >> upsampled) F99 are an issue. > > > >> > > > >> I don't recall, but it's hugely likely I tried with rigid body too, > > > >> i.e. without the bit cut off at bottom. > > > >> > > > >> On 25 October 2011 00:53, Colin Reveley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hello. > > > >> > > > >> I have macaque data that is 0.25mm. I like that. I can do things with > > > >> it that are more than cosmetic. > > > >> > > > >> The data was taken with a fancy brukker, and the contrast is very good > > > >> from the sequence used. so good I wonder if it's a problem (it's a > > > >> FLASH_MTR - it does correlate to T1 really closely, but contrast GM-WM > > > >> is clearer. and there may be differences.) > > > >> > > > >> Thus far, I've been downsampling to 0.5 to make CARET surfaces. > > > >> > > > >> I'm beginning to suspect that, for my project, there is profit in a > > > >> surface made at 0.25, with many nodes. > > > >> > > > >> what I am interested in is the really quite small region (in absolute > > > >> terms) that was the subject of the paper by lewis and van essen in > > > >> 2000. > > > >> > > > >> even though the F99 atlas does not have 300,000 nodes the paint, > > > >> border and metric data are scalable and my own data would indeed > > > >> support a hi-res surface, and benefit from it. > > > >> > > > >> I've got RAM. > > > >> > > > >> but I never managed to get far with 0.25. > > > >> > > > >> segmentation fails with hindbrain at any resolution below 0.5. > > > >> > > > >> I didn't mind. But now I think (I really do) I have a good reason to > > > >> seek surface construction directly from my structural data at 0.25mm. > > > >> > > > >> So: is it possible? caret_command ... -res=X ? > > > >> > > > >> my data is ex-vivo. And probably no more than 1% of nonGM or nonWM > > > >> voxels are nonzero. no ventricles. nothing. I did that. A mistake > > > >> maybe. > > > >> > > > >> If I segment at 0.5, upsample to 0.25 and generate a surface with my > > > >> data it works. CARET can make the surface. > > > >> > > > >> but segmentation does not work. > > > >> > > > >> appreciate help. > > > >> > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Donna Dierker <[email protected]> > > > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" > > > <[email protected]> > > > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:00:35 -0500 > > > Subject: Re: [caret-users] hi res macaque > > > "this is now where our development effort is focused these days" should > > > have read "this is NOT where our development effort is focused these days" > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Donna Dierker wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry I don't have time to read this more carefully, but I'm swamped > > > > this week. > > > > > > > > But the quick scan leads me to believe this is an issue with you trying > > > > to segment monkey data at a resolution above 0.5mm. > > > > > > > > The problem is that some of the routines (e.g., especially > > > > eye/skull/hindbrain removal) depend on the number of slices away from > > > > the AC something is. If the number of slices is twice what it expects, > > > > it won't work. You can turn off eye/skull removal, but as you already > > > > know, de-checking hindbrain just makes it fail. > > > > > > > > Caret's segmentation has its limits, and this is now where our > > > > development effort is focused these days. Sorry. > > > > > > > > I know some people have gotten Freesurfer to segment monkey data, but I > > > > suspect there are tricks/tweaks, and I do not know them. I don't know > > > > how the talairach.xfm stuff (and that which depends on it) works, for > > > > example. Obviously MNI305 won't work as a target. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:54 AM, wolf zinke wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I had a similiar question a while ago, that was related to your > > > >> issues. At this time there was no 64 bit version of caret available, > > > >> and hence I ran into memory troubles with a high resolution monkey > > > >> file (do you use the 64 bit version of caret?). > > > >> > > > >> However, Donna Dierker gave me some pointers, why it would be > > > >> problematic to use a voxel size different from 0.5 mm. I am not sure, > > > >> if this is still true, but that might be a reason for your problem. I > > > >> myself had also the impression, that for the segmentation a resolution > > > >> of 0.25 mm would be very beneficial. > > > >> > > > >> I hope that this information helps, > > > >> wolf > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for the clarification. Currently,I am running caret on the 0.5 > > > >>> mm resolution and it overall gives good results, but fails in > > > >>> occipital regions. However, with your information I have a good > > > >>> reason to stick to the 0.5 mm resolution - makes the manual > > > >>> correction faster anyway. > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks for the reply, > > > >>> wolf > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 01/28/2010 04:03 PM, Donna Dierker wrote: > > > >>> Setting aside the memory/64-bit question, there are assumptions built > > > >>> into the SureFit algorithm that assume voxdims for monkeys around > > > >>> 0.5-0.75mm cubed. For example, there are routines in the hindbrain > > > >>> removal that are based on number of *slices* from the AC, and if you > > > >>> double the resolution, those will be off by a factor of two. In > > > >>> short, it will fail. > > > >>> > > > >>> Try downsampling to 0.5 and making sure you crop to left and right > > > >>> hems. If the problems persist, upload your anatomical volume here: > > > >>> > > > >>> http://pulvinar.wustl.edu/cgi-bin/upload.cgi > > > >>> > > > >>> On 01/28/2010 07:30 AM, wolf zinke wrote: > > > >>>> Hi, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sorry that I did not reply directly to this thread, but I did not > > > >>>> find any option for this reply. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Is there a reason why caret is not build for 64 bit systems? I tried > > > >>>> to run a segmentation on macaque data with 0.25 mm voxel size, > > > >>>> hoping to get better results due to the resoltion. However, Caret > > > >>>> threw an error about insufficient memory, which first puzzled me > > > >>>> since the PC got 32GB. But than I realized that due to the 32 bit, > > > >>>> Caret is not able to address more than 4GB of the RAM, right? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> cheers, > > > >>>> wolf > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 25/10/11 08:30, Colin Reveley wrote: > > > >>> I wonder if the bits of spine and the affine to to (deskulled, > > > >>> upsampled) F99 are an issue. > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't recall, but it's hugely likely I tried with rigid body too, > > > >>> i.e. without the bit cut off at bottom. > > > >>> > > > >>> On 25 October 2011 00:53, Colin Reveley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hello. > > > >>> > > > >>> I have macaque data that is 0.25mm. I like that. I can do things with > > > >>> it that are more than cosmetic. > > > >>> > > > >>> The data was taken with a fancy brukker, and the contrast is very > > > >>> good from the sequence used. so good I wonder if it's a problem (it's > > > >>> a FLASH_MTR - it does correlate to T1 really closely, but contrast > > > >>> GM-WM is clearer. and there may be differences.) > > > >>> > > > >>> Thus far, I've been downsampling to 0.5 to make CARET surfaces. > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm beginning to suspect that, for my project, there is profit in a > > > >>> surface made at 0.25, with many nodes. > > > >>> > > > >>> what I am interested in is the really quite small region (in absolute > > > >>> terms) that was the subject of the paper by lewis and van essen in > > > >>> 2000. > > > >>> > > > >>> even though the F99 atlas does not have 300,000 nodes the paint, > > > >>> border and metric data are scalable and my own data would indeed > > > >>> support a hi-res surface, and benefit from it. > > > >>> > > > >>> I've got RAM. > > > >>> > > > >>> but I never managed to get far with 0.25. > > > >>> > > > >>> segmentation fails with hindbrain at any resolution below 0.5. > > > >>> > > > >>> I didn't mind. But now I think (I really do) I have a good reason to > > > >>> seek surface construction directly from my structural data at 0.25mm. > > > >>> > > > >>> So: is it possible? caret_command ... -res=X ? > > > >>> > > > >>> my data is ex-vivo. And probably no more than 1% of nonGM or nonWM > > > >>> voxels are nonzero. no ventricles. nothing. I did that. A mistake > > > >>> maybe. > > > >>> > > > >>> If I segment at 0.5, upsample to 0.25 and generate a surface with my > > > >>> data it works. CARET can make the surface. > > > >>> > > > >>> but segmentation does not work. > > > >>> > > > >>> appreciate help. > > > >>> > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
