Print

Print
OK so at least it is reproducible. Maybe John could comment on the reason for this choice of behaviour of the program, or change it in a later version. Best Torben Torben E. Lund Danish Research Centre for MR Copenhagen University Hospital Kettegaard Allé 30 2650 Hvidovre Denmark email:0A0A,3333,E1E1 [log in to unmask] webpage: 0A0A,3333,E4E4http://www.drcmr.dk On 1 Feb 2005, at 11:33, Christian Keysers wrote: Thank you ! That was indeed the trouble! Christian Torben Ellegaard Lund wrote: This can happen when the functional images does only have partial coverage. Have you tried to write the normalised structural only? best Torben Torben E. Lund Danish Research Centre for MR Copenhagen University Hospital Kettegaard Allé 30 2650 Hvidovre Denmark email: 0000,0000,EEEE[log in to unmask] webpage: 0000,0000,EEEEhttp://www.drcmr.dk On 1 Feb 2005, at 11:14, Christian Keysers wrote: Dear SPMers I have followed John Ashburner's proceedure for aligning data from different days, and it works very nicely After determining the normalisation based on the segmented T1 and the apriory for grey matter, we applied this normalisation using the template bounding box to our mean functional and T1, and found the top of the parietal lobe and the bottom of the cerebellum to be chopped off... I checked the segmentation, and it contains everything. I visualised the normalised T1 many ways. The top and bottom are always missing... What are we doing wrong? -- Christian Keysers, PhD Assistant Professor BCN Neuro-Imaging Center University of Groningen Antonius Deusinglaan 2 (room 120) 9713 AW Groningen Phone: +31 50 3638794 Fax: +31 50 3638875 -- Christian Keysers, PhD Assistant Professor BCN Neuro-Imaging Center University of Groningen Antonius Deusinglaan 2 (room 120) 9713 AW Groningen Phone: +31 50 3638794 Fax: +31 50 3638875