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  

|
June 17, 2015 10:58AM
Hi Helmut,

> Is this commonly applied or are there instances in one would want to turn to a
> lower order (and/or turn to other polynomials)?

It's a legitimate and interesting question. The suggestion of "1 + floor(dur/150 s)" for the order of polynomials or the default cut-off value 1/128 Hz for the Discrete Cosine Transform is purely empirical (and convenient for the general user). It probably works fine for most cases; but for other cases (e.g., model tuning/building), it may make sense to find a more appropriate fitting. To do so in AFNI, you can add option -bout (plus -tout and -fout) in 3dDeconvolve or -Rbuck in 3dREMLfit to output the baseline coefficients (including the polynomial coefficients) and their statistics, which should be able to assist the investigator in determining the order of the fitting polynomials. For example, if the highest-order polynomial coefficient is very small and not statistically significant (with liberal thresholding of, e.g., 0.1) in the whole brain, you may lower the original order in model specification. On the other hand, if the highest-order polynomial coefficient is large or statistically significant (with liberal thresholding of, e.g., 0.1) in the whole brain, a higher order polynomial fitting is warranted.

> Are there any additional calculations on the polynomial regressors before they
> enter the design matrix and/or at a latter step performed automatically in AFNI
> but possibly not in SPM (e.g. orthogonalization of the regressors, well, Legendre
> polynomials should be orthogonal anyway)?

No further manipulations are performed on the Legendre polynomials in AFNI.

Gang



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2015 11:17AM by Gang.
Subject Author Posted

Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

Helmut June 17, 2015 10:36AM

Re: Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

gang June 17, 2015 10:58AM

Re: Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

Helmut June 17, 2015 12:51PM

Re: Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

gang June 18, 2015 11:00AM

Re: Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

rick reynolds June 17, 2015 01:27PM

Re: Polynomial regressors to account for slow frequencies

Helmut June 17, 2015 01:47PM