For the image that needed manual repositioning, the result you get certainly seems to be related to the fact that the image needed repositioning.  As for the results from the repositioned image, I'm not sure about the cause of the rather poor result.  Skull-stripping too tightly can sometimes cause problems.  I don't tend to test the SPM segmentation against skull-stripped images as it was intended to be run on original images (try running most segmentation algorithms on images with skull on, and see how well they do something they were not intended to do).  Low quality scans (or severe pathology) can also segment rather poorly, although they'd need to be pretty bad for that to happen.

Best regards,
-John


On 7 November 2014 17:46, Shengwei Zhang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I'm re-sending the message below with the links to the images.

raw.png
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1-hPZ22Vq1VSG1kTlBwbjVRSk0/view?usp=sharing


Shengwei

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Shengwei Zhang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thank you for your detailed reply, John. I tried SPM12, but I'm afraid the segmentation is still not satisfactory. Probably the raw space T1 image is far from well aligned with MNI space.

The attached images are a quick demonstration of what I was referring to, all performed in SPM12.
The raw.png is my raw space T1 image, and the raw-gmpm.png is the native space GM probability map given by 'Spatial'->'Segment' module in batch editor.
The coreg.png is from the same subject after linearly aligned to MNI space, and the coreg-gmpm.png is the GM probability map of the aligned image, which is much more reasonable.

Could you please suggest what may cause this and advise how I can run DARTEL on the raw space image and avoid running it on the aligned image? Thanks again.

Shengwei