 |
 |
I've run both bedpost and bedpostX on various data sets,and the crossing-fiber algorithm tended to take 3-6 times as long. I think it's a lot more computationally intensive. Fortunately it parallelizes well, and you only have to run bedpostX once on a given data set. DG On 10/18/07, Neil Killeen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi > > I have noticed that the running times for V 3.3.6/bedpost and V4.0 > /bedpostx > are hugely different. On my relatively small test data set, each > 3.3.6/bedpost slice > runs in a few minutes (diff_pvm). However, 4.0/bedpostx takes a > VERY long time (> 60 min). It is the xfibres process that takes the > time. > > I am assuming this is not right and I have something to track down, or > could it possibly bve something to do with different algorithms and > the particular data set ? > > thanks > Neil > -- David A Gutman, M.D. Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences Emory University School of Medicine