[Freesurfer] Appropriate levels of surface smoothing

2014-10-27 Thread Kirstie Whitaker
Hi everyone,

Firstly - thank you for the excellent tools. This year has been my first
foray into surfaced based analysis and I'm enjoying it very much.

I don't currently have a gut instinct for an appropriate level of surface
smoothing. I'm sure that can't be easily answered but would a range of,
say, 3 to 5mm sound good? Or more like 10 to 15mm?

Currently I'm considering cortical thickness analyses, but I may extend
into functional analyses in the future.

If there are any references that you can recommend I'd appreciate that very
much.

Best wishes
Kirstie

-- 
Kirstie Whitaker, PhD
Research Associate

Department of Psychiatry
University of Cambridge

*Mailing Address*
Brain Mapping Unit
Department of Psychiatry
Sir William Hardy Building
Downing Street
Cambridge CB2 3EB

*Phone: *+44 7583 535 307
*Website:* www.kirstiewhitaker.com
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.


Re: [Freesurfer] Appropriate levels of surface smoothing

2014-10-27 Thread Bruce Fischl
Hi Kirstie

there is no easy answer to this question, but there are some guidelines:

1. The size of the smoothing kernel depends on the size of the effect you 
are looking for and how well you expect it to align across subjects. For 
example, you would need a far smaller smoothing kernel if you expected to 
find a small change in the middle of the calcarine than if it was in more 
variable frontal or parietal regions.

2. The more subjects you have in your study the less smoothing you probably 
need.

3. You pay a far smaller price for large kernels on the surface than you do 
in the volume.

Sorry I don't have a more useful answer. Doug might have more to add (but 
note our responses may be slower than usual as we are putting on a course 
in Boston this week)

cheers
Bruce


On 
Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Kirstie Whitaker wrote:

 Hi everyone,
 
 Firstly - thank you for the excellent tools. This year has been my first
 foray into surfaced based analysis and I'm enjoying it very much.
 
 I don't currently have a gut instinct for an appropriate level of surface
 smoothing. I'm sure that can't be easily answered but would a range of, say,
 3 to 5mm sound good? Or more like 10 to 15mm?
 
 Currently I'm considering cortical thickness analyses, but I may extend into
 functional analyses in the future.
 
 If there are any references that you can recommend I'd appreciate that very
 much.
 
 Best wishes
 Kirstie
 
 --
 Kirstie Whitaker, PhD
 Research Associate
 
 Department of Psychiatry
 University of Cambridge
 
 Mailing Address
 Brain Mapping Unit
 Department of Psychiatry
 Sir William Hardy Building
 Downing Street
 Cambridge CB2 3EB
 
 Phone: +44 7583 535 307
 Website: www.kirstiewhitaker.com
 

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.