 |
 |
I personally like to look at the whole cluster, and do my best to be specific as to which regions (BA areas and basic anatomical locations) in which the cluster falls. I have often seen large clusters which can 'meander' through several regions, and clusters which link together at the edge but clearly cover multiple regions. I always think it is best to be specific and hate when researchers only report the localization of the peak. Donald, is there a toolbox or function for labeling using AAL with percentages? I have tried an anatomy toolbox, which can be very useful, but it seems to have legacy versions of functions from SPM5 in its path, so when I install it it causes SPM8 to cease functioning. Colin On 17 March 2014 17:13, MCLAREN, Donald <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Another point to consider, most researchers use the peaks to define the > location, rather than the entire cluster. > > They may miss regions if a region doesn't contain a peak OR if the > analysis program only provides the top 3 peaks of the cluster. > > Do you have a recommendation of how many regions you should list for your > peak? > > I have thought about using the AAL atlas and saying X% of the cluster is > A, Y% in B, etc. This better characterizes the cluster, but doesn't use > probabilities from probablistic atlases. I'd be open to suggestions to > integrate probabilities into the percentages. > > > > 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 Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Colin Hawco <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> For what it is worth, I would advise caution on any automated labelling >> system. Not all atlases are correct, and the labels, particularly at >> borders, may be susceptible to error from normalization and anatomical >> variability across participants. >> >> Probabilistic atlases would be a better choice (which produce a >> percentage probability that given coordinates are in a given anatomical >> region). >> >> in almost all cases, I personally am a strong advocate of checking by >> visualization. I visually confirm all my coordinate labels and clusters, >> using both atlas labels and reference to anatomical maps and atlases. >> Automated systems make mistakes! And anatomical devisions are not as >> precise as we would like them to be. >> >> >> On 17 March 2014 13:02, Aser A <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have a list of different coordinates ( around 200 ). I also have a >>> brodmann atlas as a nifti file from the software wfu. I would like to find >>> an automated way of labelling these voxels as brodmann areas. >>> >>> Helps will be appreciated, >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> Aser A >>> >> >> >