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  

|
February 22, 2012 09:29PM
Hi Colm,

That looks like a result of Fourier interpolation on data that appears to
be masked. Those bands outside are presumably still very close to zero
(though they can still show statistical significance, if the edges that
the bands come from do).

Did you mask the data before this step? If so, why?

Note that Fourier interpolation, while considered the most accurate, has
the side effect of such banding from sharp edges or spikes in the data
(things that are far from smooth), which applies to interpolation over
space as well as over time (3dTshift). For this reason, we do not use
Fourier interpolation as the default with afni_proc.py.

I should also mention that with afni_proc.py, the default at the single
subject level is not to mask at all (well, except for the EPI extents).

- rick

Subject Author Posted

banding after 3dvolreg

Colm Connolly February 22, 2012 08:31PM

Re: banding after 3dvolreg

rick reynolds February 22, 2012 09:29PM

Re: banding after 3dvolreg

Colm Connolly February 23, 2012 01:53PM

Re: banding after 3dvolreg

rick reynolds February 23, 2012 04:44PM