AFNI Message Board

Dear AFNI users-

We are very pleased to announce that the new AFNI Message Board framework is up! Please join us at:

https://discuss.afni.nimh.nih.gov

Existing user accounts have been migrated, so returning users can login by requesting a password reset. New users can create accounts, as well, through a standard account creation process. Please note that these setup emails might initially go to spam folders (esp. for NIH users!), so please check those locations in the beginning.

The current Message Board discussion threads have been migrated to the new framework. The current Message Board will remain visible, but read-only, for a little while.

Sincerely, AFNI HQ

History of AFNI updates  

|
March 24, 2022 10:56PM
Hello,

Sorry for my delayed response, I forgot to select the option to be emailed about replies (it is selected now though).

Context: I'm assessing different ways to present language activation maps from a single subject to neurosurgeons as part of a patient's pre-surgical workup and planning. The current clinical workflow includes running ~3 simple block design language paradigms meant to elicit activation in a few key language areas, then displaying results via 3 separate thresholded activation maps overlaid on an anatomical. The specific tasks selected sometimes vary based on a subjects ability level but all are geared toward eliciting activation in classic Broca's (e.g., verbal fluency) or Wernicke's (e.g., listening comprehension) or both (e.g., reading an incomplete sentence and thinking of a word to fill in a blank). Activation is also commonly observed around visual word form area, DLPFC, along the middle temporal gyrus, and other language-related regions. The goal is to capture the maximum amount of activation associated with the broader construct of language which is then combined with other clinical data to help determine potential risk of language impairment after some surgical intervention. Given this clinical application, a little more emphasis is placed on type II error compared to fMRI in the research arena but type I error is still of significant concern. Additionally, the construct of interest (i.e., language) is more loosely defined than what is common in research.

I want to eventually alter this workflow by displaying only one merged thresholded language map, but I don't know what the best method is for doing this. The gfisher option of 3dmerge seems like a simple place to start.
Subject Author Posted

Merging thresholded activation maps in single subject with 3dmerge -gfisher

wmccuddy January 20, 2022 11:41AM

Re: Merging thresholded activation maps in single subject with 3dmerge -gfisher

gang January 30, 2022 08:30PM

Re: Merging thresholded activation maps in single subject with 3dmerge -gfisher

wmccuddy March 24, 2022 10:56PM

Re: Merging thresholded activation maps in single subject with 3dmerge -gfisher

gang March 30, 2022 09:44AM