Re: [caret-users] doubt regarding fiducial mapping

2015-08-11 Thread Donna Dierker
What software was used to reconstruct the surface?

With freesurfer, there is an offset between the orig.mgz and the surface.  And 
depending on many factors, you might have to flip/rotate the surface to be in 
the same orientation as the volume (or bring the volume to the surface).

See this thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/caret-users%40brainvis.wustl.edu/msg02081.html

Also see the Check Alignment between Normalized Volume and Surface section 
here:

http://brainvis.wustl.edu/help/pals_volume_normalization/spm5_normalization_pals.html

Examining the surface contour overlaid on the volum in volume view All is often 
very enlightening.


On Aug 11, 2015, at 4:42 AM, j...@nbrc.ac.in wrote:

 
 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


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


Re: [caret-users] doubt regarding fiducial mapping

2015-08-11 Thread john

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