Hi Steve,
I initially tried to improve coregistration to the structurals by using BET with the -B option. This helped a little, but coregisteration directly to the MNI template was far superior. My understanding is that direct coregistration to a standard template used to be standard practice - is this not a valid method?
Also, do you know why there might be such a difference between the two methods? It was a struggle to get the coregistration-to-structurals to work well (functional data is noticeably out of the bounds of the structurals - e.g. 10-15% out of bounds in the dorsal direction), whereas the coreg-to-MNI was very smooth with great results (i.e. near perfect alignment with the MNI template).
Thanks very much!
Evan
But I would strongly recommend you fix your registration problems - that could well be more important to your final analysis than getting FIX to run.
Steve.
On 11 Nov 2016, at 16:46, SUBSCRIBE FSL Anonymous <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks Ludovica! I'll give that a try.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
Head of Analysis, Oxford University FMRIB Centre
FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
+44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
[log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop the cultural destruction of Tibet
|