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  

|
November 03, 2005 12:23PM
Thank you, Gang. That helps immensely; I mainly needed help clarififying exactly which hypotheses I would be able to test with each approach.

I have also found that the statistics could have been inflated for the combined-test because I forgot the account for other stimuli that were present (stimuli in which we have no interest at the moment). I designed the matrix so those other stimuli would be dumped into the baseline, instead of accounted for with their own parameter, whereas in the individual-item case every stimulus was accounted for by a parameter. This could, I believe, have contributed 'noise' to the baseline parameter that could have affected the results of the test.
Subject Author Posted

different approaches to deconvolution / glt

george November 02, 2005 07:12PM

Re: different approaches to deconvolution / glt

Gang Chen November 03, 2005 10:55AM

Re: different approaches to deconvolution / glt

george November 03, 2005 12:23PM

Re: different approaches to deconvolution / glt

Gang Chen November 03, 2005 01:18PM