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
|
storrisi
April 27, 2016 12:29PM
Hi all-

Just curious here. 3dFWHMx is normally performed on errts files since it's the smoothness of the noise that matters. This makes perfect sense for fMRI tasks. However for resting state analyses the errts is "the good stuff" and not considered noise, per se. Should this matter for 3dFWHMx smoothness estimation? After normal resting state analyses the errts that result from a standard afni_proc.py stream are of course going to be fed into 3dTcorr1D, which doesn't output an errts itself. This makes me wonder if we should instead be using a single regressor in 3dDeconvolve for that 3dTcorr1D step, and then performing 3dFWHMx on those errts files. A wild idea. In any case I'm pretty sure there's no statistical violation normally occurring so I'm mainly asking experts for their thoughts and some clarification. Thanks!

-Sam
Reply Quote
RSS
Subject Author Posted

3dFWHMx conundrum?

storrisi April 27, 2016 12:29PM

Re: 3dFWHMx conundrum?

Bob Cox May 02, 2016 01:45PM

Re: 3dFWHMx conundrum?

rick reynolds May 02, 2016 04:13PM