Yeah... right after sending the email, I thought I should have rewritten
it.
I was wondering, why Melodic outputs much much more components, although
nearly everything was the same. And with my email, I wanted to ask, if
the way of using mcflirt is the reason for that difference:
Case 1:
Using Melodic with (already!) mcflirt corrected data
-> setting Melodic GUI "Motion correction" to "none"
In this case I got 613 and 200 components.
Case 2:
Using Melodic with pure, untouched data
-> setting Melodic GUI "Motion correction" to "Mcflirt"
In this case I got 150 and 148 components.
This is a huge difference, so listed the differences of the design.fsf
files and the fact, how I splitted the 4D data set.
My consequence is: don't ever again use Melodic with m.c. option set to
"none".
Or is it possible to use a command line option to set the
motion parameter file?
Cheers,
Matthias
> Hi Matthias -
> I'm a bit unclear what you are asking. You definitely need to run
> McFlirt. If you want to additionally try to remove motion parameters,
> this can be done (along with artefact identification and removal)
> through the FIX tool.
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
>
> On 27 August 2014 11:00, Matthias Heil
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a lot of already McFlirt motion corrected data. This
> data I want
> to analyze with Melodic, without its motion correction option.
> Does this
> make a difference? Since there is no option to specify motion
> par(ameter) files, but I get a lot different components
>
> with/w.o. McFlirt: automatic components = 150 and 148 vs. 613
> and 200
>
> Other differences (design.fsf):
> # Output components
> set fmri(dim) 1 vs. 200
>
> with McFlirt data set has been split and merged with fslsplit
> and
> fslmerge (to have only half of the time points).
>
> Thx,
> Matthias
>
>
|