addition:
the command was:
fast -v0 -c 2 -od sImage Image
Oliver Trebbe schrieb:
> Hello Mark,
>
> i´m now testing fast with all possible options, but maybe u can tell me:
> what would be the options using fast and get the most approximatly
> results next to fast in the older version (fast v3.x (3.5 or so i
> guess)(i´ll give the exact version number later...))
>
> This would be a great Help!
>
> Thx a lot
>
> Oliver
>
>
>
> Mark Jenkinson schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Neighbourhood can have a significant influence via the MRF
>> (adjustable via -H) and
>> so this could be causing what you see. The other thing might be the
>> bias field if
>> these voxels are in very different locations. Have you checked the
>> bias field output?
>>
>> As for number of classes - it is still prominently displayed on the
>> GUI and
>> available as the first option on the command line (-n).
>>
>> All the best,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2009, at 21:13, Oliver Trebbe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i dont get, why a black and a white 'voxel' (low ad high intensity)
>>> are clustert with same probability...
>>> Maybe it is neighborhood connected but there is such 'high edge',
>>> that there cant be a connected area...
>>> After the newest Version of fast isnt it possbile to use it to
>>> segment other things instead of WM GM and CSF in a brain extracted
>>> Image?
>>> can´t i segment a Volume into 2 classes anymore?
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Jenkinson schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried modifying the number of iterations (-I) the
>>>> spatial MRF (-H) or the bias field smoothing (-l) ?
>>>> These parameters can all have a strong effect (as can some
>>>> of the other parameters too, but I'd start with the ones above).
>>>>
>>>> It will help if you can identify what you think is going wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Does the bias field look OK? It shouldn't show visible anatomical
>>>> detail, and the restored image should have a nicer histogram.
>>>>
>>>> Are the results too smooth (decreasing -H might help) or maybe
>>>> not smooth enough (increase -H)?
>>>>
>>>> Also - have you done brain extraction with BET? This is essential
>>>> for getting good results.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, are you looking at the hard segmentations of the PVEs?
>>>> It is the PVEs that we recommend as the most useful outputs,
>>>> and these can look different than the hard segmentations around
>>>> the boundaries.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Jan 2009, at 11:40, Oliver Trebbe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello ,
>>>>>
>>>>> after i tried my method with the new FAST version, but the results
>>>>> are bad!
>>>>> so i suggesting using the old FAST version. (dont know what
>>>>> exactly changed, but the stuff im segmenting is bad clustert, not
>>>>> like id wanted it or guessed it..)
>>>>>
>>>>> So far
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Oliver Trebbe
>>>>> Department of Neurology
>>>>> University of Muenster
>>>>> 48129 Muenster, Germany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Oliver Trebbe
>>> Department of Neurology
>>> University of Muenster
>>> 48129 Muenster, Germany
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Oliver Trebbe
Department of Neurology
University of Muenster
48129 Muenster, Germany
|