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 28, 2005 08:29AM
Dear all

a recent paper (Murphy and Garavan, Neuroimage 2005 Oct 1;27(4):771-7) proposes a method of estimating activation that might be more stable with respect to the standard approach. In synthesis, an impulse response function (IRF) is estimated with 3dDeconvolve, then a non-linear fitting of a gamma function is applied voxel-wise to the estimated IRFs, and finally the area under the curve of the fitted gamma function, normalized as percent change with respect to the baseline (AUC%), is computed. This parameter, instead of the usual estimated *amplitude* of the fitted hemodynamic response function, is then entered into a group-level statistics (t-test or anova) to assess between-subject effects.

In trying out the approach, I was wondering about the optimal values for the initialization parameters of the nonlinear fitting of a gamma function, considering that the experimental design is a standard event-related task with brief event durations (~1 sec). Since the expected hemodynamic response shouldn't be *very* different from the canonical one (crf. Cohen), it should be possible to have an educated guess about the initialization values, which would maximize the performance of the algorithm in terms of both computing time and of the goodness of fitting. Also, it is not clear to me what would be a sensible choice for the 3dNLfim parameters nrand and nbest.

thanks for any comment or suggestion


giuseppe
Subject Author Posted

3dDeconvolve, 3dNLfim, and area under the curve

giuseppe pagnoni November 28, 2005 08:29AM

Re: 3dDeconvolve, 3dNLfim, and area under the curve

Kevin Murphy November 28, 2005 11:20AM

Re: 3dDeconvolve, 3dNLfim, and area under the curve

giuseppe pagnoni November 29, 2005 03:49AM