help
help > RE: GTG for event-related design
Oct 6, 2016 11:10 PM | Jeffrey Spielberg
RE: GTG for event-related design
Hi Alex,
Off the top of my head, I'd say that you want to maximize the # of trials and the separability of the trials (e.g., via ISI jittering, stimulus order), rather trial length, etc. Basically, you want to maximize signal detection for the effects of interest (rather than HRF estimation).
As for GTG's implementation of BSC, we've tested this out with a few different data sets, but have not yet published anything. In other words, I'm fairly confident that it does what it's supposed to, but want people to know that this aspect of toolbox has not been tested nearly as extensively as the rest. Also, you should definitely avoid using the "node-specific mean HRF" at this point, as we have not evaluated whether this is any better than (or even comparable to) using an assumed HRF.
Best,
Jeff
Off the top of my head, I'd say that you want to maximize the # of trials and the separability of the trials (e.g., via ISI jittering, stimulus order), rather trial length, etc. Basically, you want to maximize signal detection for the effects of interest (rather than HRF estimation).
As for GTG's implementation of BSC, we've tested this out with a few different data sets, but have not yet published anything. In other words, I'm fairly confident that it does what it's supposed to, but want people to know that this aspect of toolbox has not been tested nearly as extensively as the rest. Also, you should definitely avoid using the "node-specific mean HRF" at this point, as we have not evaluated whether this is any better than (or even comparable to) using an assumed HRF.
Best,
Jeff
Threaded View
Title | Author | Date |
---|---|---|
Alex Rainer | Oct 6, 2016 | |
Jeffrey Spielberg | Oct 6, 2016 | |