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:

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

History of AFNI updates  

Previous Message Next Message
Message List New Topic Print View
|
gang
February 27, 2015 03:51PM
This does not look like a good idea to me. The BOLD response usually varies across trials, and it's rarely the case when you have a constant response among all the trials. If you model the task response with a presumed response function, that would be another layer of inaccurate modeling. When you remove the task effects from the original signal by subtracting the modeled responses, you can only remove the *average* effects, and what is left still contains a lot of task effects. So it would be very problematic to simply treat the residuals or unmodeled signal as resting or intrinsic state independent of the tasks.

Gang



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 04:03PM by Gang.
Reply Quote
RSS
Subject Author Posted

Removing task signal

galarcon February 27, 2015 02:36PM

Re: Removing task signal

rick reynolds February 27, 2015 02:59PM

Re: Removing task signal

galarcon February 27, 2015 03:30PM

Re: Removing task signal

gang February 27, 2015 03:51PM

Re: Removing task signal

galarcon February 27, 2015 06:12PM

Re: Removing task signal

gang March 02, 2015 11:02AM