Okay, thanks for the suggestion to switch to make_random_timing.py. I'm still confused about the question I originally asked you though. Generating the stimulus schedule with make_random_timing.py results in stimulus schedules where some trials are back-to-back and with no rest in between them. Looking at one of my schedules, there is even the case where there are 4 trials that end up being back-to-back with no rest in between them. Is this problematic from the perspective of deconvolving the HRF if you end up having trials that are back-to-back like that somewhat often? I am running several iterations of this routine, testing with 3dDeconvolve to get the efficiency for the contrast I'm interested in, and then taking the most efficient schedule, but I'm still wondering if I need to do additional QC of the stim schedules by excluding any schedules where there is too high of a proportion of 'back-to-back' trials, or too many back-to-back trials in a row?

For comparison's sake I also tried testing out make_random_timing.py without time-locking it to a TR and there are also instances where there is no rest between trails (effectively an ISI=0) but it was very rare compared to creating stimulus schedules with the time-locking.

Thanks so much for your conceptual help with this!!