The difference might be due to poor coregistration between the EPI and
T1 image. Make sure that the EPI and T1 are properly aligned before
applying the transforms.
Best Regards, Donald McLaren
=================
D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and
Harvard Medical School
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
Website: http://www.martinos.org/~mclaren
Office: (773) 406-2464
=====================
This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED
HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773)
406-2464 or email.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Niels Sigvartsen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear SPM experts,
>
>
>
> I’ve got a question about normalisation. When we normalise our EPIs with the
> parameters from segmenting the T1 (sagittal) structural, the results seem a
> smaller brain than if we normalise to the EPI template using the normalise
> algorithm.
>
>
>
> How can we assess which of the procedures might be better (and the one we
> want)?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Niels Petter Sigvartsen
>
>
>
> Research technician
>
> KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, TOP study
>
> Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital &
> Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo
>
>
>
>
|