JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  October 2010

SPM October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: SPM8 Segmentation Issue

From:

"Watson, Christopher" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Watson, Christopher

Date:

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:34:27 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (79 lines)

For New Segment I believe you have to write out the deformation fields instead. Then you can write out the new images using the Deformations utility.
________________________________________
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Courtney Brown [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] SPM8 Segmentation Issue

Thank you for the helpful responses to my post. I have run my images through SPM8 "New Segment," which does indeed improve the quality of the segmented images considerably. I am attempting to continue the pre-processing of these images (specifically, Normalize and Smooth the fMRI images) and am running into a problem: the normalization parameters produced by "New Segment" (seg8.mat) is not recognized as a parameter file for the Normalize and Write step (error code generated pasted below):

Running 'Normalise: Write'
Failed  'Normalise: Write'
Reference to non-existent field 'VG'.
In file "/usr/local/share/data/spm/spm8/spm_write_sn.m" (v2534), function "get_xyzmat" at line 430.
In file "/usr/local/share/data/spm/spm8/spm_write_sn.m" (v2534), function "spm_write_sn" at line 96.
In file "/usr/local/share/data/spm/spm8/config/spm_run_normalise_write.m" (v2312), function "spm_run_normalise_write" at line 25.

Running 'Smooth'
Done    'Smooth'
The following modules did not run:
Failed: Normalise: Write

My question is: Is there a way to generate a seg_sn.mat file that would be compatible with the Normalize and Write step? Alternatively, is there a more appropriate way to normalize and smooth fMRI images using the parameter file generated from "New Segment?"

Thank you in advance,

Courtney Brown


On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:17 AM, John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Both of these segmentation failures are due to poor initial affine
registration.  Essentially, if the initial alignment with the tissue
probability maps is not so good (maybe because of intensity
nonuniformities, large initial misregistrations, or incorrect voxel
sizes etc) then the kinds of results we see here may be expected.  The
algorithm behind the Segment button does not include any knowledge of
what would be expected outside the brain, as the tissue probability
maps are only of GM, WM and CSF.  One of the effects of this is that
the initial affine registration may be less robust.

If you use SPM8, there is an alternative segmentation routine
available from among the toolboxes (with the unimaginative name of
"New Segment").  This implementation includes some additional
knowledge of non-brain tissues, so is generally more robust.  It will
eventually become the default segmentation routine, but only after I
have written some more code to use the deformation fields it produces
for spatial normalisation.

Best regards,
-John

On 23 October 2010 16:10, Courtney Brown <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having some difficulty with the segmentation step within SPM8. I am
> looking at healthy young adults completing fMRI paradigms. After outputting
> grey matter and white matter segmented files from the anatomical image, I
> have gotten strange results (please see attached jpeg images). This does not
> happen each time I run segmentation, but I have gotten similar output files
> on several occasions. I have tried running segmentation with the cropped
> anatomical image as opposed to the original anatomical image. The images
> above involve the SPM8 segmentation default settings. I have also tried to
> adjust some of the segmentation defaults (higher/ lower Bias regularisation,
> higher/ lower Bias FWHM), but have gotten similar results in each case.
>
> My question is: Does anyone have a sense of what would cause these types of
> images being outputted after the segmentation step. And furthermore, what
> would be the best resolution to this issue in order to adequately preprocess
> fMRI images for analysis?
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Courtney Brown
>
> Graduate Student
> Department of Psychology
> University of Georgia

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager