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  

|
January 15, 2020 03:54AM
Thank you for swinging back around, and especially patience/perspective with the follow up questions below.

~Dane

Regarding dmUBlock: My understanding was that this was a variant used for PPI analyses where you had a psychological measure/performance value that varied and could be applied as a potential moderating factor. Unfortunately while our task actually has "strong" vs. "weak" stimuli the performance data was so good we had a ceiling effect and insufficient variance to utilize such an approach.

Re dmUBLOCK(-X): Our stimuli does not have a consistent duration as mentioned. The nature of the audio stim mean they vary between 8 and 10 seconds yet contain the same number of auditory tones (an intended control) depending time between tones. Is there a significant reason/benefit to treat all stimuli a single length (potentially ignoring TRs of stimuli), rather than use dmBlock_AM1 and instruct AFNI to fit the duration of each event using the "Onset:duration" formatting?

Re Original 3dDeconvolve HDR length inquiry: In the attached image you can see a visualization using excel of TRs (rows) broken down by stimuli condition along side the 3 HDR models from 3dDeconcolve's .xmat.1D output column's. My mentor noticed that the columnar models both tend to combine trials that are close together and also append 7 or 8 TRs to the end of each stimuli period, and wanted to know how these are computed since length varies so much.

Re 3dSynthesize: Thank you for the warning and recommendation. It is noted and will be discussed. If we decide to proceed, than I believe our process would be the pipeline below. Please let me know if you see any holes or issues, and if '-cenfill none' option sounds correct.

A. Remove effects of no interest via your 3dSythn "-cenfill none" +3dCalc with for each condition separately (ex: [Strong] - [Weak + Silence + 6 degree Movement + Censors])
B. 3dMaskave our ROIs
C. Use the .xmat.1D column TR periods for each condition (as in excel above) to create 0/1 condition time masks for trimming the .1D signals
D. Remove all 0's to Combine condition periods into contiguous blocks.
E. Compare the ROI-to-ROI correlations between condition's blocks.
Attachments:
open | download - Screen Shot 2020-01-15 at 12.25.29 AM.png (80.1 KB)
Subject Author Posted

Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions Attachments

daanderson January 07, 2020 03:53AM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions

daanderson January 09, 2020 01:17AM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions

gang January 13, 2020 02:01PM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions Attachments

daanderson January 15, 2020 03:54AM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions

gang January 15, 2020 05:48PM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions Attachments

daanderson February 06, 2020 04:24AM

Re: Task-Based Functional Connectivity - 3dDeconvolve & 3dSynthesis questions

gang February 07, 2020 02:23PM