Thank you for your explanation. I have a little bit confused. As the third
way of registration you mentioned, why could we simply apply the motion
correction for fMRI volume data and align to T1 image with bbr, then
project to fs32k native surface as one step registration, couldn't we? If
not, how
Hi Denis
Let me CC this also to the HCP-users email list, where others might also learn
something from it.
For the MEG1 release we had planned and documented that we would include the
hs_file. But then we realized that
1) it has facial details in it (nose and around eyes), which we had agreed
It isn't impossible to get the data into the grayordinate space we use,
though the volume to surface mapping part could be problematic because of
alignment/group average issues. As long as the data is nonlinearly
registered to MNI152 space, you are really only missing the volume
subcortical label
Hi Timothy,
Thank you for your reply. So sounds like that the file Atlas_ROIs.2.nii.gz
for whichever subject can get me the same result?
I'd also like to follow up on Dr. Harms' suggestion on using
melodic_IC_sum.nii.gz. Given the discussion on the inaccuracy in group
level surface/volume
A better way to put it is any volume-based group average cortical result is not an accurate representation of the underlying subjects’ data. The results that Mike was talking about are generated by taking the group CIFTI ICA results and dual regressing
them into each individual’s CIFTI dense
