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
|
Jay
January 14, 2004 12:08PM
Suppose that we have an experiment with three stimulus conditions and also a "resting" cross-fixation condition. After the fact, we decide that we are not interested in the "resting" cross-fixation baseline condition but instead want to use one of our stimulus conditions as the baseline, comparing the remaining two stimulus conditions. What approaches could one take in using 3dDeconvolve to acheive that goal? Would it be reasonable to use a censor file to get rid of all of the cross fixation baseline TRs and code only the two stimulus functions as .1D files, thus leaving the 3rd condition as the baseline? I should note that the three conditions have roughly the same number of presentations each, so the "new" baseline would have about half as many presentations as the total of the remaining stimulus functions.

Thanks,

- Jay
Reply Quote
RSS
Subject Author Posted

3dDeconvolve "second" baseline.

Jay January 14, 2004 12:08PM

Re: 3dDeconvolve "second" baseline.

bob cox January 14, 2004 03:27PM