Hi FreeSurfers,
I was just reading this post to the archive (below) regarding using
mri_glmfit-sim on volume data, and it suggests that using --grf rather
than doing the simulation can be inaccurate at low smoothness and low
thresholds. At what smoothness values and threshold values should we
opt
that
you will have to rerun the simulation because the search space will have
changed.
doug
On 12/03/2013 12:05 PM, Susan Ruiz wrote:
Hi Doug,
I have been running this analysis as I described in my previous email by
clustering pos and neg activation separately using glmfit-sim for
condAvfix
, that looks correct. I think it is an open question as to whether
you should use the corrected maps or use the uncorrected and then correct
the final map. Maybe someone else can chime in.
doug
On 10/23/2013 09:49 AM, Susan Ruiz wrote:
Hi Doug,
This is /very/ helpful.
Procedurally, would
Hi all,
When running a functional analysis and comparing two experimental
conditions, we observed that there are some voxels/vertices where both
condition A and condition B have a positive % signal change from baseline,
and condition A has greater activity than condition B.
In other regions,
use before 5.2 comes out?
thanks
Bruce
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Susan Ruiz wrote:
Hi all,
Using previous versions of FreeSurfer, we have used the eTIV as a covariate
for our volumetric analyses. We
have been using the eTIV numbers from 5.1.0 for new studies. What would you
recommend
Hi all,
Using previous versions of FreeSurfer, we have used the eTIV as a covariate for
our volumetric analyses. We have been using the eTIV numbers from 5.1.0 for new
studies. What would you recommend using for subjects who have been run with
5.1.0? Can you make the template available
Hello all,
I have been using FS5.0 and just started using 5.1. I tried running a recon
with the new version with two of my subjects, and in both cases I got the same
error message:
IFLAG= -1 LINE SEARCH FAILED. SEE DOCUMENTATION OF ROUTINE MCSRCH ERROR RETURN
OF LINE SEARCH: INFO= 3 POSSIBLE
