<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 91, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>Dear MRI Studio,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your great class in July!</div>
<div>Working with a meta analysis of WM regions I decided to use the ICBM-81 as the gold standard, which all other articles has to match even if coordinates are used. However, ICBM-81 does not include the important forceps minor (FMi) nor forceps major (FMa)
regions. I found that in FSL there are JHU-ICBM-tracts-maxprob-thr0-1mm.nii, JHU-ICBM-tracts-maxprob-thr25-1mm.nii and JHU-ICBM-tracts-maxprob-thr50-1mm.nii that do include both FMi and FMa, but with different thresholds. I thought I could create my own map
by merging one of the other 3 maps with the ICBM-81, but I would like FMi and FMa to have a comparable threshold to the original threshold of ICBM-81. In my study I need the parcellated spatial ROI distributions to have the same threshold (including for FMi
and FMa). Can you recommend which FMi/FMa map I should use to merge with the ICBM-81 to get a complete white matter parcellation map? In addition, I don't necessarily need to merge the additional map to the ICBM-81. It is also okay if you tell me which map,
which includes FMi and FMa, that has the most comparable threshold as the ICBM-81 map.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Best Regards,</div>
<div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">
<div>Cyrus Eierud </div>
<div>Graduate student in the LaConte Lab</div>
<div>Baylor College of Medicine, TX and</div>
<div>Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>