No, not in the current framework. Even if there were, fwhm=.66 would not
give you much smoothing. The intervertex distance is about 1mm, at
fwhm=.66mm, the nearest vertex would be about 3 standard deviations
away, meaning that the smoothing would be minimal.
On 12/21/18 12:12 PM,
So, is there anyway around this issue?
>
> The smoothing works through iterative nearest neighbor smoothing, so the
> fwhm is essentially discretized because you can't have fractions of an
> iteration. It looks like fwhm=0.66 is closer to 0 iterations than 1
> iteration, so it chooses 0.
>
> On
The smoothing works through iterative nearest neighbor smoothing, so the
fwhm is essentially discretized because you can't have fractions of an
iteration. It looks like fwhm=0.66 is closer to 0 iterations than 1
iteration, so it chooses 0.
On 12/21/18 11:23 AM, sha...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Dear Surfers,
I am trying to use mris_fwhm to apply fwhm=0.66 to my fmri data (voxel
size 1 mm iso)using the below command:
mris_fwhm --s --hemi rh --smooth-only --i
fmcpr.sm0.self.projfrac_0.rh.nii.gz --fwhm 0.66 --o
fmcpr.sm0p66_surf.self.projfrac_0.rh.nii.gz --mask
Hi,
I'm getting an NAN value for some surfaces but not for others. Any
ideas? Both surfaces below were generated using an identical process.
[yi...@schnook sph_sm20]$ pwd
/autofs/space/ventzl_001/users/SUBJECTS_DIR/mano010/bold/EMexec3/sph_sm20
[yi...@schnook sph_sm20]$ mris_fwhm --i
