ENH: Output thickness, curvature, and sulcal depth files #305
Conversation
…e using to_scanner
…o derivatives yet
Co-authored-by: Christopher J. Markiewicz <effigies@gmail.com>
- Will require an update to `Path2BIDS` in niworkflows
Codecov ReportBase: 70.37% // Head: 68.86% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #305 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.37% 68.86% -1.51%
==========================================
Files 17 17
Lines 1134 1169 +35
Branches 189 197 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 798 805 +7
- Misses 274 304 +30
+ Partials 62 60 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
|
@effigies do you happen to know the BIDS compliant suffixes for |
|
That said, who knows what sorts of arguments will happen before that gets merged. |
|
Perfect, staying true to its FS equivalent 😄 Thanks, ready for review |
Co-authored-by: Chris Markiewicz <effigies@gmail.com>
|
I have yet to run this on my own data |
|
CIFTIs generated by MRIsConvertData match their FS equivalents (loaded with |
smriprep/workflows/surfaces.py
Outdated
| run_without_submitting=True, | ||
| ) | ||
| fscurv2funcgii = pe.MapNode( | ||
| MRIsConvertData(out_datatype="gii", to_scanner=True, target_surface="smoothwm"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lingering question: Should use the ?h.white or ?h.smoothwm surface files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think to_scanner or target_surface will make any difference here.
Continues #296