 |
 |
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!