Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread Douglas N Greve
January 13, 2017 at 3:16 PM > *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) > These differences are hard to track down because they are so subtle. > > Y

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread John Anderson
...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) These differences are hard to track down because they are so subtle. You may want to use our PET module, which includes PVC http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/PetSurfer On

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread Douglas N Greve
cwp > 0.01". How can I check that this differnce is a real differnce and > not related to partial volume effect? > Best, > John > *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM > *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvar

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread John Anderson
s ? > Best, > John > *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:21 PM > *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) > > > On 01/12/2017 05:20 PM, Jo

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread Douglas N Greve
t; *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) > > > On 01/12/2017 05:20 PM, John Anderson wrote: > > Thank you very much Doug and thank you for

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread John Anderson
me effect be avoided by using larger > numbers for "projfrac" ? No, PVEs can't be avoided that way. > Bests, > John > *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 5:08 PM > *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.har

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-13 Thread Douglas N Greve
bers for "projfrac" ? No, PVEs can't be avoided that way. > Bests, > John > *Sent:* Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 5:08 PM > *From:* "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] surface

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-12 Thread John Anderson
PM From: "Douglas N Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) yes, that is correct. However, understand that there might only be a difference of 1mm between those two locations, so it could easily be

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-12 Thread Douglas N Greve
> John > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM > *From:* "Douglas Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) > > When you say in the corpus callosum, do y

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-11 Thread John Anderson
    Bests, John   Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM From: "Douglas Greve" <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac) When you say in the corpus callosum, do you mean in WM? The

Re: [Freesurfer] surface based analysis (projfrac)

2017-01-10 Thread Douglas Greve
When you say in the corpus callosum, do you mean in WM? The surface-based analysis is only for cortical GM. If you mean in GM near the CC, then the analysis is appropriate. The projfrac parameter sets the sampling location between the white and pial surfaces where 0.5 means half way. On