search

martahedl / Updated-atlas-for-corresponding-brain-activation-during-task-and-rest

Updated and extended atlas from the ICA template suggested by Smith et al. 2009 (PNAS, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905267106). Additionally, a version of the atlas in the CIFTI file format is provided.
1 stars 0 forks source link

Thresholding of volumetric maps #1

Open MasonTWells opened 2 years ago

MasonTWells commented 2 years ago

Hi there,

Thanks for making these network templates available, they're going to be very useful for me.

I have downloaded the NIFTI file and loaded it into FSLeyes. However, I notice the thresholding is slightly different to the original Smith maps. When the original maps are loaded into FSLeyes, setting the threshold to 2.75 gives reasonable representation of the maps (see attached). If I also adopt this approach to your maps, they are much harder to interpret (see attached). Please can I ask what threshold you used for visualisation in your paper? And please could you advise on whether I am missing something with the download?

Thanks in advance, Mason

Screenshot from 2022-07-18 13-11-30 Screenshot from 2022-07-18 13-11-20

martahedl commented 2 years ago

Hi Mason,

 

the display ranges for the updated templates were [30,100] as described in Figure 4. Alternatively, you can first z-score the templates and then get a reasonable representation at z>1.96, as shown in Figure 2.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers,

Marlene.

 

   

Gesendet: Montag, 18. Juli 2022 um 14:14 Uhr Von: "MasonTWells" @.> An: "martahedl/Updated-atlas-for-corresponding-brain-activation-during-task-and-rest" @.> Cc: "Subscribed" @.***> Betreff: [martahedl/Updated-atlas-for-corresponding-brain-activation-during-task-and-rest] Thresholding of volumetric maps (Issue #1)

 

Hi there,

Thanks for making these network templates available, they're going to be very useful for me.

I have downloaded the NIFTI file and loaded it into FSLeyes. However, I notice the thresholding is slightly different to the original Smith maps. When the original maps are loaded into FSLeyes, setting the threshold to 2.75 gives reasonable representation of the maps (see attached). If I also adopt this approach to your maps, they are much harder to interpret (see attached). Please can I ask what threshold you used for visualisation in your paper? And please could you advise on whether I am missing something with the download?

Thanks in advance, Mason

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>