Reply-To: | | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask], 5 Dec 2016 11:22:10 -06002343_UTF-8 Dear Christian,
Thank you so much for the clarification! I was under the impression that the low-dimensional normalization approach applies to the subsequent spatial registration.
Thanks so much for the suggestion on which DARTEL template to use too.
Best, Darren
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Christian Gaser <[log in to unmask] > wrote:
> Dear Darren, > > please note that only for the creation of a customized TPM for the TOM9 > toolbox the low-dimensional SPM12 normalization approach is used. This TPM > is only used for the initial affine registration. However, a DARTEL > normalization is recommended for the subsequent spatial registration anyway. > > If you intend to analyze children and parents in one analysis together you > should also use the same (DARTEL) template. In that case I recommend to > create a customized DARTEL template based on all children and parents. > > Best, > > Christian > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 17:38:13 +0000, Darren Yeo <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > >Dear all, > > > >I am attempting to run a VBM analysis with child-parent dyads using > CAT12/SPM12, and I have some concerns about the normalization approach I > should adopt. > > > >I was thinking of the following: > >For children (n = 20) - Create a customized Tissue Probability Map using > TOM8 toolbox, use low-dimensional SPM12 normalization approach (as > suggested in CAT12 manual p. 42) > >For adults (n> 50) - Use the SPM12 Tissue Probability Map, use the > SPM12's DARTEL template in MNI space > > > >Eventually I would like to correlate the two groups, and I was wondering > if the above approach would be ideal, or should I use the SPM12's DARTEL > template in MNI space for children for normalization too? I'm aware that I > do not have a sufficiently large sample (n > 50) to create a customized > DARTEL template for the children. > > > >I would appreciate any suggestions or advice! > > > >Thank you. > > > >Best, > >Darren > > >[log in to unmask] |