Hello,


I am using CONN-defined ROIs in an exploratory whole-brain ROI-to-ROI FC analysis (i.e ROIs from atlas.nii, and network.nii as defined within CONN). My study is mainly focused on cortical and subcortical regions so I excluded the cerebellar ROI seeds from my analysis and used remaining 138 ROIs as defined within CONN. The journal reviewers expect information about the ROI shape/size under methods section. I understand from the forum discussions that the atlas ROIs are defined for the whole region as parcelled in Harvard-Oxford atlas rather than specific size or shape within those regions (e.g. not just 10 mm sphere within each parcellated ROI). Ultimately, mean time-series from each voxel of the parcellated region was used to extract subject-level functional connectivity measures. If I understand correctly, the similar concept is applied to the network.nii ROIs as well. Will it be methodologically right to use the CONN-defined ROIs in the current form (default ROIs and pipeline)?

I'm wondering how best to explain this to journal reviewers? Has anyone used the CONN ROIs in same way as I did? if so, I would like to know how they wrote it up in their manuscript. Perhaps any publication I could refer to would be of great help.

Thank you!

Kind Regards,
Dilip