open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: Skull Extraction Issue
Jan 31, 2015 12:01 AM | Erik Beall
RE: Skull Extraction Issue
Hi Jasmin,
Actually, I consider monitored pulse and respiration to be the gold standard. If its monitored, properly synched to the acquisition and there aren't any large artifacts in the PMU and respiration belt signals, then those are the best things to use to model physiologic noise. PESTICA should be used when those aren't available or the PMU/respiration belt monitoring failed.
PESTICA is equivalent to monitored pulse and respiration if all goes well, but it can't be better unless the pulse/respiration monitoring failed in part of the acquisition. If there aren't any finger wiggle artifacts, the respiration belt was on okay, and the monitoring is good, then I'd go with monitored over PESTICA. There are times when you just don't see much physiologic noise coupling in the data, and in those instances, PESTICA's signals suffer. But then, there is less physiologic noise in the data in those instances. Validation is a tricky (and unsolved) problem for physiologic noise removal. I've seen more than a few times where in two scans of the same person, taken right after each other, one scan had lots of physiologic noise artifact in a seeded connectivity analysis but not in the other, mostly due to cardiac. Out of curiosity, where did you read that?
If you do not specify the -r flag, then PESTICA will not run RETROICOR in addition to IRF-RETROICOR. It always runs IRF-RETROICOR. So to reiterate (thats confusing), without -r, it will output one file, with -r it will output two files, one cleaned with RETROICOR and the other with IRF-RETROICOR.
Erik
Actually, I consider monitored pulse and respiration to be the gold standard. If its monitored, properly synched to the acquisition and there aren't any large artifacts in the PMU and respiration belt signals, then those are the best things to use to model physiologic noise. PESTICA should be used when those aren't available or the PMU/respiration belt monitoring failed.
PESTICA is equivalent to monitored pulse and respiration if all goes well, but it can't be better unless the pulse/respiration monitoring failed in part of the acquisition. If there aren't any finger wiggle artifacts, the respiration belt was on okay, and the monitoring is good, then I'd go with monitored over PESTICA. There are times when you just don't see much physiologic noise coupling in the data, and in those instances, PESTICA's signals suffer. But then, there is less physiologic noise in the data in those instances. Validation is a tricky (and unsolved) problem for physiologic noise removal. I've seen more than a few times where in two scans of the same person, taken right after each other, one scan had lots of physiologic noise artifact in a seeded connectivity analysis but not in the other, mostly due to cardiac. Out of curiosity, where did you read that?
If you do not specify the -r flag, then PESTICA will not run RETROICOR in addition to IRF-RETROICOR. It always runs IRF-RETROICOR. So to reiterate (thats confusing), without -r, it will output one file, with -r it will output two files, one cleaned with RETROICOR and the other with IRF-RETROICOR.
Erik
Threaded View
Title | Author | Date |
---|---|---|
Rocco Marchitelli | Mar 15, 2013 | |
Erik Beall | Mar 15, 2013 | |
Rocco Marchitelli | Mar 15, 2013 | |
Erik Beall | Mar 15, 2013 | |
Jasmin Czarapata | Jan 30, 2015 | |
Erik Beall | Jan 31, 2015 | |
Rocco Marchitelli | Mar 15, 2013 | |