And sorry - it's just occurred from Tristan's description: you are not registering anatomy exactly. you are registering topological features. The surface represents a brain sure enough, but the registration algorithm registers gross anatomy/topology. It could be some other manifold.
and that basically means lanmarks=sulci, and certainly it means something very convex or very concave with a homologue on registrant and registree. sometimes a clear ridge can work rather than depression. On 20 March 2012 17:00, <[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. Open vs closed borders for registration (Tristan Chaplin) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tristan Chaplin <[email protected]> > To: "Caret, SureFit, and SuMS software users" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:54:13 +1100 > Subject: [caret-users] Open vs closed borders for registration > Hi, > > I just wondering, is there advantage/disadvantage to using open or closed > borders in registration? e.g. why is the medial wall two borders and not a > single closed border? I had heard a while back that originally borders > could only be drawn on flat surfaces so this must have been necessary then, > but now you can draw borders on the 3d surface. > > Is there something "simpler" and thus better about using open borders for > registration? > > I was wondering, if you were placing a border on a cortical area with that > has a topographic organization, e.g. V1, is it better to use two borders, > one for the upper field boundary, one for the lower field boundary, to give > it some indication of the topology? I figure the closed border has a > specific start point, end point and order, so if you do it the same in both > source and target then it should match up in the same way. > > I have been reading Van Essen et al. (2011) Cortical Parcellations of the > Macaque Monkey Analyzed on Surface-Based Atlases, but I can't seem to work > it out from based on the description of the algorithm there. It seems like > it would make no difference if closed or open borders are used. > > Any insight or practical experience would be greatly appreciated. > > Cheers, > Tristan > > _______________________________________________ > 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
