Thanks Tim and Michael,
I am thinking about doing some work with some statistics derived from
tractography (starting from the vertices on gray white matter interface
and then projecting those statistics onto their respective vertices) My
thought however, is whether the MSMAll (or functional
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Claude Bajada
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting a new thread because while my question is related to the one
> ask, it is tangential.
>
> Can I confirm that what you mean by not averaging surfaces is that one
> should not average the
To explain further, the MSMAll registered surfaces have vertex indices
matched by nearby functional features, not by their position on folding
patterns. Creating a group-average MSMAll surface is essentially asking
the question "for this functional feature, where is it, on average". Based
on
Thanks Tim and Matt for the detailed responses.
I agree that mapping to volumes is sub-optimal. Our goal is to identify
coords to be used as targets for brain stimulation with TMS. We need MNI
coords for neuronavigation. Given the extent of the TMS field, we have some
tolerance for imprecisions
Creating an “average-surface” is fine, and we in fact to that and provide it as
part of our “group-average” data (available for download from ConnectomDB).
But, those average surfaces are just a “back-drop” for overlaying/visualizing
the metric/cifti data, and aren’t intended to be used as a
Hi all,
I am starting a new thread because while my question is related to the one ask,
it is tangential.
Can I confirm that what you mean by not averaging surfaces is that one should not average
the vertex points across gifti surfaces to create a so-called "average surface"
Can I ask then,