The surface generated as the average of all subjects in the atlas is significantly smoother than any individual's surface, which reduces the surface area. This may account for the discrepancy, as what appears to be reported by the paper you saw is the mean of the surface areas of the individuals, rather than the surface area of the average surface.
Tim On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Tristan Chaplin <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry that should be 565 cm2. > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Tristan Chaplin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have been looking at the surface area of the PALS atlas and am a bit >> confused as it seems smaller than I expected. The spec file >> >> PALS_B12.RIGHT.STANDARD-SCENES.73730.spec >> >> downloaded from >> >> >> http://sumsdb.wustl.edu:8081/sums/archivelist.do?archive_id=6570866&archive_name=PALS_B12.RIGHT.STANDARD-SCENES.73730.spec) >> >> seems to have a fiducial surface area of 565 mm2 (including non-cortical >> medial wall) but the Van Essen 2005 Neuroimage paper says the average >> surface area of the individuals is 965 cm2. >> >> Am I doing something wrong, or is there is something about atlas building >> that causes this? >> >> Thanks, >> 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
