Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Verify default value for CIFTI subcortical volume smoothing #89

Open
mgxd opened this issue Jul 26, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Verify default value for CIFTI subcortical volume smoothing #89

mgxd opened this issue Jul 26, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
effort: low Estimated low effort task

Comments

@mgxd
Copy link
Collaborator

mgxd commented Jul 26, 2021

def init_subcortical_mni_alignment_wf(*, vol_sigma=0.8, name='subcortical_mni_alignment_wf'):

Original implementation

${SmoothingFWHM} / ( 2 * ( sqrt ( 2 * l ( 2 ) ) ) )

@mgxd mgxd added the effort: low Estimated low effort task label Sep 13, 2021
@mgxd
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mgxd commented Oct 12, 2021

pinging @ericfeczko

@ericfeczko
Copy link
Collaborator

ericfeczko commented Mar 22, 2022

Neither?

I wouldn't set the sigma directly, because the calculation for FWHM on a 2D surface involves a natural log. From a usability stand point it is also simpler without loss of generality -- one less parameter to control for and one less parameter for the user to consider. I'd use a volumetric parameter and have the object linked to a transform function that can warp between the two. Ours and freesurfer use two different conversions here.

Ours is the above, albeit written for unix's bc: FWHM/2 * 1/(sqrt(2(ln(2)) or 0.84932180028.

Alternatively, freesurfer used (might still use?) FWHM/2.36 as the conversion (2*sqrt(2(ln(2)))=2.354, they round up for some reason), which is a bit simpler -- this would give 0.84745762711

Hope this helps.

@mgxd
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mgxd commented Mar 22, 2022

what is the default Smoothing FWHM used in the dcan pipeline? 2?

@ericfeczko
Copy link
Collaborator

ericfeczko commented Mar 22, 2022

Good question. Spatial blurring is a pandora's box, its kind of a legacy so keep that in mind ;)
See here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11707101/

and here:
http://www.tina-vision.net/docs/memos/2003-011.pdf

I love citing TINA because TINA Is No Acronym :P

Typically, WashU and the groups I learned under at MGH recommended as little blurring as possible -- so I've always restricted it to the length of the voxel in question.

The default is 2, but that was set due to the resampled resolution of the bold data (2 mm isotropic) for ABCD/HCP.

Might be more scalable to just link it to the final voxel resolution for whatever is getting smoothed, but I'll defer to all 'yall on the decision.

Hope this helps :) this is an issue I've probably read far too much about.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: low Estimated low effort task
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants