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  

|
April 04, 2020 12:09PM
Hi, Joy-

Oooook, this set of EPI-anat align opts worked well (see attached APQC HTML piece; and I did verify it by running afni_proc.py with both full EPIs entered this time...):
-align_opts_aea \
   -big_move -cmass cmass \

Some other thoughts struck me about regression modeling here: you might want to add these opts:
      -regress_compute_fitts                                   \
      -regress_make_ideal_sum sum_ideal.1D                     \
      -regress_motion_per_run                                  \
... to (in order):
+ output the full time series fit by the model
+ output the "ideal" response curve, based on your input stimuli timings and chosen HRF
+ and, well, I'll just display part of the afni_proc.py help for this last opt:
-regress_motion_per_run : regress motion parameters from each run

                default: regress motion parameters catenated across runs

            By default, motion parameters from the volreg block are catenated
            across all runs, providing 6 (assuming 3dvolreg) regressors of no
            interest in the regression block.

            With -regress_motion_per_run, the motion parameters from each run
            are used as separate regressors, providing a total of (6 * nruns)
            regressors.

            This allows for the magnitudes of the regressors to vary over each
            run, rather than using a single (best) magnitude over all runs.
            So more motion-correlated variance can be accounted for, at the
            cost of the extra degrees of freedom (6*(nruns-1)).

--pt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2020 12:10PM by ptaylor.
Attachments:
open | download - newest_ap_ve2a.png (645.4 KB)
Subject Author Posted

Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

joy0617 March 28, 2020 04:06PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

ptaylor March 28, 2020 05:40PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

joy0617 March 29, 2020 11:59AM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

ptaylor March 29, 2020 01:15PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

joy0617 March 30, 2020 10:16AM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

ptaylor March 30, 2020 10:43AM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

joy0617 April 02, 2020 04:12PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

ptaylor April 02, 2020 07:02PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

ptaylor April 03, 2020 10:27AM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

joy0617 April 03, 2020 11:24AM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

ptaylor April 03, 2020 12:01PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

ptaylor April 04, 2020 12:09PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py

joy0617 April 05, 2020 01:25PM

Re: Alignment problem with afni_proc.py Attachments

joy0617 March 29, 2020 12:03PM