Re: [Freesurfer] Entorhinal thickness

Thank you very much for your kind answer. Mohamed On 18/02/16 23:22, Bruce Fischl wrote: > The ex vivo is probably more accurate since it was created by directly > visualizing the relevant cytoarchitectur > >> On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Douglas N Greve >> wrote:

Re: [Freesurfer] Entorhinal thickness

The ex vivo is probably more accurate since it was created by directly visualizing the relevant cytoarchitectur > On Feb 18, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Douglas N Greve > wrote: > > One (aparc) is derived from manual labels registered into the subject > space. The other is

Re: [Freesurfer] Entorhinal thickness

One (aparc) is derived from manual labels registered into the subject space. The other is derived from an exvivo label. On 02/18/2016 10:23 AM, Mohamed Ali Bahri wrote: > Dear Freesurfer, > > The entorhinal has different volume and thickness in the > "?h_aparc.stats" &

[Freesurfer] Entorhinal thickness

Dear Freesurfer, The entorhinal has different volume and thickness in the "?h_aparc.stats" & "?h.entorhinal_exvivo.stats" files. Could any one explain way and which one should be used? Many thanks in advance, Best regards, Mohamed -- Dr. Mohamed Ali Bahri, 1er Logisticien de Recherche,

[Freesurfer] entorhinal thickness

Hi Bruce and other users, I have read the article on EC that you have suggested. But, I do not understand how I should obtain the EC thickness outcomes /statistical maps from my analysis. I have some question, please. I have already performed recon-all and cortical thickness analysis. For