deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_papers_cited_here_add__.tex b/The_papers_cited_here_add__.tex  index dca69f7..ac60cea 100644  --- a/The_papers_cited_here_add__.tex  +++ b/The_papers_cited_here_add__.tex 
...
The papers cited here add evidence for our hypothesis that different ROIs will have different scaling factors, due to regional differences in contrast, as shown in a VBM analysis by Tardiff and colleagues. I have edited this section:    \textit{"We hypothesized that all differences in \textbf{regional} contrast and geometric distortion result in regional volumes that are consistently and linearly scaled from their true value. For a given region of interest (ROI), two mechanisms impact the final boundary definition: gradient nonlinearities cause distortion and, simultaneously, hardware (including scanner, field strength, and coils), coils)  and acquisition parameters modulate tissue contrast, adjusting the whole boundary. \textbf{Previously, Tardiff and colleagues have found that contrast-to-noise ratio and contrast inhomogeneity from various pulse sequences and scanner strengths cause regional biases in VBM\cite{tardif2010regional,tardif2009sensitivity}, and therefore we hypothesized that each ROI will scale differently at each site.} By imaging 12 subjects in 20 different scanners using varying acquisition schemes, we were able to estimate the scaling factor for each regional volume at each site..."}