Hi Narender, hi Kalina,
> This would be true if there were no way of harmonising MNI space and
> regionally specific cytoarchetecture. However, work is in progress that
> is characterising the cytoarchetecture of several human brains (e.g.
> from the Zilles lab in Duesseldorf). Crucially for the imaging
> community, data from individual brains will normalised into a common
> space to form probablistic maps. While these maps will not allow us to
> localise activations to specific cytoarcetectonic regions in
> individuals, they will allow us to estimate the probability that
> activations lie in given cytoarcetectonic areas.
Yes, of course, this would be great (although of course the probability maps
would depend on your normalization method). Unfortunately I don't think we
are very close to that ideal as yet, by which I mean that getting some sort of
cytoarchitecture probability map for all brain regions will take something
like 10 years at least. I am happy to be corrected on this, but that is my
understanding.
By the way, at a major tangent to your message, I think it is worth pointing
out, in case it is unclear, that the BA labels from the Talairach daemon also
refer to the Talairach atlas, and not the MNI brain. Indeed those are the
labels that Kalina and I have been working to transform to/from the MNI brain,
Best,
Matthew
|