Thank you for your quick answers!
@Yasser.
I am sorry, but with this new version, it is the same.
The underlying image is the ouptut of native SPM5 segmentation (spm_segment), which as far as I am correct, is also used by ibaspm, right?
No, the input is not skullstripped.
@Marko
"an additional "cleanup" procedure that may be too aggressive on your data"Yes, that is what I was looking for!
Dear Markus:
Here I am sending to you our last version. I am preparing a new web page to put it as soon as possible. I am also preparing a quick guide for users.
I was checking your image and I can see lot of skull tissue in your gray matter segmentation. Can you please tell me if your native image have skull stripped or not?
Best regards
Yasser
... but if the T1 seems perfectly registered ... ??? If, as I assume, the wT1 are the result of the same segmentation procedure, this argues against normalization having gone awry. Is there (I do not know IBASPM well enough) an additional "cleanup" procedure that may be too aggressive on your data?Maybe the answer's in the title of the Bookstein paper ;-)
Best,
Marko
--
=====================================================================
Marko Wilke (Dr.med./M.D.)
[log in to unmask]
Universitäts-Kinderklinik University Children's Hospital
Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie) Dept. III (Pediatric neurology)
Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1, D - 72076 Tübingen
Tel.: (+49) 07071 29-83416 Fax: (+49) 07071 29-5473
=====================================================================