Theoretically speaking the hemodynamic response from a point stimulus would be the convolution between the time point and the impulse response function, but it seems to me in numerical world what really happens in 'waver' is that a point stimulus is spread out over 0.1 seconds of duration.
Therefore a more revealing comparison than the following one
waver -dt 1.0 -tstim 5:6 -GAM -numout 20 | 1dplot -stdin &
waver -dt 1.0 -tstim 5 -GAM -numout 20 | 1dplot -stdin &
would be this:
waver -dt 1.0 -peak 1 -tstim 5 -GAM -numout 20 > res1
waver -dt 1.0 -peak 1 -tstim 5:5.1 -GAM -numout 20 > res2
1deval -a res2 -expr "10*a" > res3
1dplot -one res1 res3 &
which shows an identical response except numerical errors.
Another comparison would tell the same story:
waver -dt 1.0 -peak 1 -tstim 5:6 -GAM -numout 20 > Oh1
waver -dt 1.0 -peak 1 -tstim 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 -GAM -numout 20 > Oh2
1deval -a Oh1 -expr "10*a" > Oh3
1dplot -one Oh2 Oh3 &
The '1deval' command is just used to scale up one of the two responses for comparison.
So any point stimulus in 'waver' seems to be numerically implemented with a duration of 0.1 seconds.
Gang