Hi,
I hadn't intended to look at this data as you said that the
problem could not be replicated, and hence I assumed that
this meant that it had gone away. Is this the case? Do you
still see this problem? If you are not getting the problem
anymore then it may have just been due to corrupt file
writing, disk quotas, or other things which are not worth
worrying about.
All the best,
Mark
On 14 Feb 2010, at 14:48, Dana Eldreth wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for your response. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the
> data
> that I put on your server that would be great. So you can see my
> responses,
> I've put them in CAPS.
>
> Your previous response: I haven't heard about that problem of one run
> failing but
> a re-run working. If you have a dataset where you can replicate
> this (by
> taking a fresh copy of the original data and doing it all again)
> then please
> upload it for us to have
> a look at.
>
> I COULDN'T REPLICATE THIS PROBLEM AS YOU HAVE SUGGESTED HERE WITH THE
> ORIGINAL DATA, SO I UPLOADED A SUBJECT WHO INITIALLY DISPLAYED THIS
> PROBLEM.
> UPLOAD NUMBER: 701725. YOU WILL SEE THAT IN THE
> 313_all_fast_firstseg file
> THE RIGHT AMYDALA APPEARS APPROXIMATELY IN THE JAW AREA.
>
> Any help is greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks again and have a good weekend!
> Dana
>
>
> All the best,
> Mark
>
>
> On 29 Jan 2010, at 14:23, Dana Eldreth wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone else noticed this problem with FIRST on
>> the newest
>> release 4.1.5.
>>
>> First, I'd like to note that FSL 4.1.5 does an excellent job at
>> boundary
>> correction on our older brains. It's extremely impressive.
>>
>> 1. For some reason, this newest release occasionally does not
>> accurately
>> parcellate some structures correctly (e.g., hippocampus in the brain
>> stem),
>> but when I rerun it again it appears to fix the problem and the
>> volumes are
>> where they should be in the brain. The volume sizes are also
>> relatively
>> close to the volume sizes that I had in the earlier version of FIRST.
>> Interestingly, the volumes that appear to be parcellated in the
>> wrong area
>> produce the same volume size as when FIRST produces the volumes in
>> the
>> correct location. Has anyone else noticed this, and should this be
>> something that I should be concerned about?
>>
>> I also had another question associated with FIRST:
>> 1. How can I tell how confident the program is that it has accurately
>> identified a specific structure, or can I only tell via visual
>> inspection
>> using a neuroantaomical atlas?
>>
>> As always, thank you so much!
>>
>> Dana
>>
>
|