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
|
Cathy
August 27, 2003 08:06PM

I tried both methods as explained in "Sample Data Analysis with 3dDeconvolve". For all of my runs except one, the second method works better (where IRESP is deconvolved out given the stimulus). However, this method gives almost no activation in this one run (even though the IRESP functions peak nicely at index=2 ), whereas the first method using waver gives a spectacular activation map. The activation can also be clearly seen in the raw time series. How can there be such a discrepancy? The map is slightly better if I view it under Full F-stats instead of picking a time lag, but I'm not happy about doing that.

Please advise,

thank you,
cathy
Reply Quote
RSS
Subject Author Posted

3dDeconvolve

Cathy August 25, 2003 07:54PM

Re: 3dDeconvolve

bob cox August 25, 2003 08:12PM

Re: 3dDeconvolve

Ziad Saad August 26, 2003 09:58AM

Re: 3dDeconvolve

Cathy August 27, 2003 08:06PM