Dear Jerome,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Jérôme Courtemanche wrote:
> 1) Should I use PST hanning? I can't find much information to help me
> choose.
My philosophy is - don't use any extra processing without a reason and
that is also true for PST hanning. The idea there is to emphasize the
central part of the response and downweight the edges which might be
just noise. Also it can be used to make prolonged responses look more
like transients that the source reconstruction is more sensitive to.
It is also used in DCM for ERP where there is an option to display
your data with or without hanning so you can visualize the effect it
has. But unless you know of a reason why you should use it - don't.
> 2) Is reporting meg data (voxel-level uncorrected p 0.05, cluster level
> corrected p 0.05)
> acceptable you think?
>
Unlike the fMRI community we do not have well established standards
for publishing findings of 3D source reconstructions. From what I'm
hearing from fMRI people I understand that whole brain FWE correction
is very conservative and is not usually used when people have an idea
what they are looking for. They usually do a small volume correction
around the area where they expect the response (of course this should
be decided in advance and not post-hoc). I'd be glad if our colleagues
contribute their thoughts on this, especially those who have
experience with publishing results of distributed source
reconstructions.
Best,
Vladimir
|