 |
 |
Thanks very much! On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi - I would use the RSN20 - they are higher intrinsic resolution / detail > than the BrainMap maps. > > Yes ideally if you can use within-run ICA to denoise then that's a good > thing to do before dual-regression. > > Cheers > > > > On 2 Jun 2015, at 09:58, Sarah Izen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I'm using FSL to analyze resting state functional connectivity. After > performing melodic and determining that my networks were not well defined, > even after trying different numbers of components, I've decided to use > predefined networks for my analysis. I have been looking at the BrainMap 20 > database and see there are two sets of data - the BrainMap 20 and the > Resting State Network 20. From what I can gather, these two sets of > networks have been found to be quite similar. So, is there any reason to > choose one over the other for my analysis? Is one more widely used or more > valid for any reason? > > Secondly, I just want to make sure it is correct that I am running melodic > in order to denoise prior to conducting my dual regression instead of just > inputting raw resting state data. Please advise. > > Thanks! > Sarah > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering > Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre > > FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK > +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717) > [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Stop the cultural destruction of Tibet <http://smithinks.net> > > > > >