Jeff
On 3/28/06, Nick Schmansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff,
If the centos_x86_64 build works for you, then definitely use that. The
rh9 build was recommended only because many older SuSE installations did
not have libc++-std.so.6, and commands would fail because of this.
The differences in precision between the rh9 and the centos builds is
due to differences in floating point optimization in one of the math
libraries we use. This is being addressed in the next stable release,
but is not a concern for your existing installation.
It is also possible that you will see minor differences in results due
to randomness built-in to some of the algorithms that Freesurfer uses.
These differences should be small though, and should not affect overall
results.
Sorry, I don't know the answer to #2.
Nick
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:34 -0600, Jeffrey Spielberg wrote:
> Hi, I have a couple of questions I was hoping the list might help me
> with,
>
> 1. I am using SuSE Linux version 10 (X86-64) and previously I had
> been told that the redhat 9 release was the most similar to SuSE 10,
> but with the release of the CentOS 4 X86_64 release I wondered if this
> would be best to use. To that end I ran the same subject with both
> the new CentOS 4 X86_64 release and the new redhat 9 release and came
> up with different results. For example both the wm.mgz files produced
> by the two releases have small but noticeable differences. Is this
> because of rounding error due to the 64 vs 32 bit difference, and if
> so does anyone know which release would be best to use, that is, is
> one going to give a better estimate, or are both going to give
> slightly different, but equally good estimates? If it's not due to
> rounding error what could be the cause?
>
> 2. I want to map automatic segmentation's to fsl feat directories,
> but fsl uses LAS orientation, while freesurfer uses RAS. Does the
> feat2anat or aseg/aparc2feat commands take this into account, or
> should I swap the dimensions of one or the other? If I should swap
> dimensions, would it be best to simply put my structural scan into
> freesurfer in LAS format in the first place, or swap things after all
> the freesurfer analysis has been done?
>
> thanks,
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freesurfer mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list [email protected] https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
