i assumed you hypothetical cycle time would be 5x(16+40s), no?
cheers,
andreas
________________________________________
Von: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [[log in to unmask]] im Auftrag von Reem Jan [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 07:41
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [FSL] AW: Cutoffcalc query
Hi Andreas
Thank you again! May I ask why 280s? If I exclude the 16s at the start
and at the end I get 320s. But to get 280, we are subtracting the
duration of one condition as well (i.e. 40seconds)?
Cheers
Reem
-----Original Message-----
From: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Andreas Bartsch
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [FSL] AW: Cutoffcalc query
No, but around 280secs should still be fine.
Andreas
________________________________________
Von: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [[log in to unmask]] im Auftrag von
Reem Jan [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2010 23:50
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [FSL] Cutoffcalc query
Dear FSLers
Using the cutoffcalc command, my high-pass filter cutoff was calculated
to be 306
Is that too high?
My design is as follows:
OFF (16s) - Condition 1 (40s) - OFF (16s) - Condition 2 (40s) - OFF
(16s) - Condition 3 (40s) - OFF (16s) - Condition 3 (40s) - OFF (16s) -
Condition 2 (40s) - OFF (16s) - Condition 1 (40s) - OFF (16s) i.e. total
= 352 seconds.
Many thanks for your help
Cheers
Reem
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5471 (20100922) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5471 (20100922) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5471 (20100922) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|