afni.nimh.nih.gov
AFNI Message Board
Dear AFNI users-
We are very pleased to announce that the new AFNI Message Board framework is up! Please join us at:
Existing user accounts have been migrated, so returning users can login by requesting a password reset. New users can create accounts, as well, through a standard account creation process. Please note that these setup emails might initially go to spam folders (esp. for NIH users!), so please check those locations in the beginning.
The current Message Board discussion threads have been migrated to the new framework. The current Message Board will remain visible, but read-only, for a little while.
Sincerely, AFNI HQ
We are very pleased to announce that the new AFNI Message Board framework is up! Please join us at:
https://discuss.afni.nimh.nih.gov
Existing user accounts have been migrated, so returning users can login by requesting a password reset. New users can create accounts, as well, through a standard account creation process. Please note that these setup emails might initially go to spam folders (esp. for NIH users!), so please check those locations in the beginning.
The current Message Board discussion threads have been migrated to the new framework. The current Message Board will remain visible, but read-only, for a little while.
Sincerely, AFNI HQ
| September 06, 2014 03:31AM | |
Hello Gang,
very good points you are making there, and I hadn't thought at all about the effect of the historical trend of increasing sample sizes on the employed statistical strategy: with the number of subjects in a study reaching sometimes the three digits, the problem of "too much" activation becomes more and more real, and a sort of "rich-world" curse!
Your idea of using the amplitude of the response as an additional parameter to gauge the spatial specificity of the activations seems very promising to me: I haven't seen any formal discussion in the literature about this, though, have you? Even better, are *you* thinking of cooking up something like this for AFNI?
thanks again for your thoughts!
giuseppe
very good points you are making there, and I hadn't thought at all about the effect of the historical trend of increasing sample sizes on the employed statistical strategy: with the number of subjects in a study reaching sometimes the three digits, the problem of "too much" activation becomes more and more real, and a sort of "rich-world" curse!
Your idea of using the amplitude of the response as an additional parameter to gauge the spatial specificity of the activations seems very promising to me: I haven't seen any formal discussion in the literature about this, though, have you? Even better, are *you* thinking of cooking up something like this for AFNI?
thanks again for your thoughts!
giuseppe
