>
yes, ours is an individual s surface reconstruction, and so we checked the
registration in spm8( using  anatomical image used for reconstruction and
the functional image volumes used for mapping), where the volumes are
coregistered properly, but shows anomaly in caret.

thank you



This almost always is because the functional volume is not
> stereotactically registered to the anatomical volume used to generate the
> fiducial surface. Is this an atlas surface (e.g., one of the PALS mean
> midthickness surfaces), or is it an individual's surface reconstruction?
> If atlas, this could happen if you were trying to map SPM functional data
> to the AFNI mid thickness surface, for example, because there are
> noticeable differences between those stereotaxic spaces.
>
> If individual, make sure the functional volume is in register with the
> anatomical volume used to generate the surface.
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:40 AM, j...@nbrc.ac.in wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>   when i map the functional data onto caret fiducial surface, it appears
>> that the mapping is shifted in rostrocaudal axis, caudally, by about 2
>> -3 mm. anyone has idea what could be possibly wrong here?
>> thanks,
>> john
>> _______________________________________________
>> caret-users mailing list
>> caret-users@brainvis.wustl.edu
>> http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caret-users mailing list
> caret-users@brainvis.wustl.edu
> http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users
>
>

_______________________________________________
caret-users mailing list
caret-users@brainvis.wustl.edu
http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users

Reply via email to