And how do you find the peaks (which field in D?)?
Sorry...I meant which inversion model tend to be best for individual
subjects.
Thx!!!
On 11/02/2016 12:37, Vladimir Litvak wrote:
> You could report the peaks in the image.
>
> Vladimir
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:33 PM, gj <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the lightning-speed reply!
> And recommendations for single-case studies?
>
> On 11/02/2016 12:28, Vladimir Litvak wrote:
>
> This is not surprising because with a smooth prior like IID or
> COH you
> always get some activation everywhere. If you want to get focal
> results
> you should proceed to statistical analysis across subjects (e.g.
> compare
> two conditions).
>
> Model evidence is indeed one way to choose the best method. We
> would
> recommend to use MSP with group inversion if you have multiple
> subjects
> but some people get better results with COH or IID.
>
> Best,
>
> Vladimir
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM, gj <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We did inverse reconstruction in SPM 12 using the
> COH/LORETA-like
> smooth prior inversion model.
>
> Like Jun Wang's 2012 post "EEG source reconstruction in
> wrong place"
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=spm;f26e48d5.1210
>
> this leads to source localization "everywhere", in our
> case, where
> ever there are gyri (when we "display" the "image" after
> "invert"),
> although it appears to show stronger activation where we
> expect.
> However, the source is localized to where we would expect
> it to be
> using GS/greedy search.
>
> Could this be a diagnostic of something wrong we have done?
> Maybe
> inappropriate to ask here, but any pointers to where we can
> find
> guidelines/recommendations as to how to choose what
> inversion model
> to use (try them all and choose the one with the highest
> log evidence?)?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
>
>
|