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  

|
February 14, 2007 02:48PM
I'm assuming that when you're describing the possibility of "stimuli being more bunched up in time" for one subject than another, this is really only relevant for tasks where the trial duration is determined by the subject's response. For trials of set duration and in blocked design, where I am interested in using the same reference fx for analyzing each subject's data, I'm gathering that 1) I don't need to worry that the scaling is >1, and 2) it would not be advantageous to again normalize the data after it's been through waver (and possibly disadvantageous).

Thank you, to everyone, for you your comments. This is very helpful.
Subject Author Posted

Waver peak problem?

Bonnie February 14, 2007 12:49PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Giorgio Ganis February 14, 2007 01:05PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Lisa T. Eyler February 14, 2007 02:05PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Ziad Saad February 14, 2007 02:30PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Bonnie February 14, 2007 02:48PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Ziad Saad February 15, 2007 09:36AM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Stephanie McMains September 17, 2007 05:39PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Gang Chen September 17, 2007 06:08PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

rick reynolds September 17, 2007 08:50PM

Re: Waver peak problem?

Colm Connolly February 15, 2007 07:14AM