 |
 |
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]>> 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! > >