[Camino-users] waypoint vs. endpoint

[Philip A Cook]

Hi Michael,

I think your workaround is the best way to do it,

cat allTracts.Bfloat |  procstreamlines -endpointfile AtoC.nii | procstreamlines -waypointfile B.nii > ac.Bfloat

This way you will do the end point truncation before the waypoint step. 

For your use case it does make more sense to have the waypoints done last. In some cases we might want to do the waypoints first, for example if you want the end points to extract a portion of some fibers. Let's say I have fibers connecting A to B, but I want a specific section of those, between C to D. 


Phil

On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Michael Zeineh wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I noticed something about waypoints vs. endpoints. Say I want to track from A to C, and I only want tracks that go through B. If I specify A as a seedpoint, and both A and C as endpoints, and B as a waypoint, this should accomplish this task. However, if tracks go through a circuitous root they can go from A to C and then to B afterwards. These tracks will not be filtered by the waypoint filter since they go through the waypoint. However, they will be truncated after the endpoint, so using this approach one can get a track that will not hit a waypoint.
> 
> Please let me know if I am doing something wrong, or if this is a limitation of the software at the moment. If the latter is true, maybe it would be better if waypoints were applied after truncation in procstreamlines (though there may be reasons I am not aware of for the current configuration). An easy workaround is applying a 2nd procstreamilnes with just the waypoint filter.
> 
> Michael Zeineh_______________________________________________
> Camino-users mailing list
> Camino-users at www.nitrc.org
> http://www.nitrc.org/mailman/listinfo/camino-users