this is for holding javascript data
Anisha Keshavan added missing citations
over 8 years ago
Commit id: 7de992396041a7fe1d0374274e17a09127226212
deletions | additions
diff --git a/Assumption_is_made_that_the__.md b/Assumption_is_made_that_the__.md
index 9380bc4..b39c9a5 100644
--- a/Assumption_is_made_that_the__.md
+++ b/Assumption_is_made_that_the__.md
...
The paper 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:
*We hypothesized that all differences in* ***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), and acquisition parameters modulate tissue contrast, adjusting the whole boundary.* ***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}, 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...*