that's correct, but if you combine the three, you get the overall Kimap, which you already have. So it makes sense if you use Ki001 or Ki001+Ki005, but Ki001+Ki005+Ki002 is the same as Kimap.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Dorian P. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alb.net@gmail.com" target="_blank">alb.net@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Ahh, I didn't know the kimaps should be combined. I assume now for three thresholds they should be combined in sequence <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">0.01->0.005->0.002 to give the final morphing of 0.002. Please correct me if I'm wrong.</span><div>
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Thank you.</font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Dorian<br></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2013/3/13 susumu mori <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:susumu@mri.jhu.edu" target="_blank">susumu@mri.jhu.edu</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dorian,<div><br></div><div>I assume that you are talking about the alpha value you specified when you submitted LDDMM and you used 0.005 and 0.004.</div><div><br></div><div>If you put two numbers (you can put up to three numbers), we do two CONSECUTIVE LDDMM; first using alpha=0.005 and then alpha=0.004. The smaller the number the more elastic. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In this case, because most of the image matching is already accomplished by the first LDDMM using 0.005, the second LDDMM with 0.004 did very small amount of transformation, improving local mismatch.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To see the results with 0.004, you first have to combine two transformation matrices, 0.005 and 0.004, and then do a single transformation. If you add 0.005 and 0.004 transformation matrices, you get the same matrix as the "overall" transformation matrix you also got. </div>
<div><br></div><div>So, you rarely use the 0.004 matrix alone.</div><div><br></div><div>If you submit LDDMM twice independently; one with 0.005 and the other with 0.004, then you can compare two results with different elasticity values, although 0.005 and 0.004 are two close to see large differences.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For young adult brains without atrophy, you can use 0.005. When atrophy is severe, we recommend three alpha values with 0.01/0.005/0.002.</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Dorian P. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alb.net@gmail.com" target="_blank">alb.net@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Hi all,<div><br></div><div>I sent this question yesterday, not sure if it went through because of the attachment.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I did a single channel LDDMM on a subject with two thresholds: 0.005 and 0.004. Suprisingly, the lower threshold (0.004) doesn't change much the brain of the subject, preserving the callosum shape. The other threshold (0.005) has worked better on reshaping the subjects callosum to the template shape. This is counterintuitive to say the least, because one would expect to have more morphing at 0.004 than with 0.005.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anybody knows why?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Dorian </div></font></span><div><br></div><div>P.s. Picture is here: <a href="http://tinypic.com/r/21ogmf/6" target="_blank">http://tinypic.com/r/21ogmf/6</a></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
mristudio-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mristudio-users@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mristudio-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mristudio-users@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mristudio-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mristudio-users@mristudio.org">mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org">mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>