Show all posts by user
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
Page 1 of 1 Pages: 1
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Hi Rick,
You are correct, we are not using afni_proc.py. It also occurs to me that we have multiband data, with a TR of .43 seconds, and improved spatial resolution. Not sure if that plays a role, but it is the first time I deal with this type of data and the first time I get such a low blur estimate.
The command we are trying to use is 3dFWHMx -combine -input errts+tlrc -out blur, for eac
by
Ana Bedacarratz
-
AFNI Message Board
Hi AFNI folks,
We came across some puzzling results when using 3dFWHMx on our 3dDeconvolve errs files. Namely, each subject's estimated spatial smoothness is around 2.0, and we applied a blur of 4.0 on these data in preprocessing. This seems peculiar, as I understand that the estimated values are generally larger than the blur that was applied to the data.
We tried with -automask an
by
Ana Bedacarratz
-
AFNI Message Board