afni.nimh.nih.gov
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:
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
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
| October 22, 2003 11:07AM | |
Hi all
I was browsing through the message board and following some thread I came across a reply by Doug Ward that argues for using the max value of the convolved input stimulus function as the correct scaling factor:
[afni.nimh.nih.gov]
Now, I was pretty sure that if we want to express the magnitude of a regressor coefficient in terms of percent change wrt the baseline level of the BOLD signal, the only important parameter was the original amplitude of the convolving function (GAM, WAV or else), NOT the max value of the convolved timeseries (which depend of course on the event temporal distribution). A previous lengthy thread (Liz, Gang, Rick) seemed to confirm this, but Doug's e-mail challenges my certainty (surely, by virtue of some authority principle...
any comments?
giuseppe
I was browsing through the message board and following some thread I came across a reply by Doug Ward that argues for using the max value of the convolved input stimulus function as the correct scaling factor:
[afni.nimh.nih.gov]
Now, I was pretty sure that if we want to express the magnitude of a regressor coefficient in terms of percent change wrt the baseline level of the BOLD signal, the only important parameter was the original amplitude of the convolving function (GAM, WAV or else), NOT the max value of the convolved timeseries (which depend of course on the event temporal distribution). A previous lengthy thread (Liz, Gang, Rick) seemed to confirm this, but Doug's e-mail challenges my certainty (surely, by virtue of some authority principle...
any comments?
giuseppe
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Diana Krenz | October 21, 2003 06:57PM |
|
Gang Chen | October 21, 2003 07:10PM |
|
Giuseppe Pagnoni | October 22, 2003 11:07AM |
|
rick reynolds | October 22, 2003 11:42AM |
|
Edward J. Butterworth | October 23, 2003 11:28AM |
|
rick reynolds | October 23, 2003 11:45AM |
|
Edward J. Butterworth | October 23, 2003 12:48PM |
|
rick reynolds | October 23, 2003 01:13PM |
|
Edward J. Butterworth | October 23, 2003 01:22PM |
|
Gang Chen | October 23, 2003 02:20PM |
|
Diana Krenz | November 03, 2003 12:48PM |
