Steve, Have you found an obvious downside to a shorter HPF cutoff of, say, 200 seconds? Would the HCP FIX training data still apply or would the classifier need to be retrained?
-Keith On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Xu, Junqian <junqian...@mssm.edu> wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Ely, Benjamin <benjamin....@mssm.edu> wrote: > > > > Thanks Steve, that's good to keep in mind. Our acquisition is a single > "HCP-like" 15 minute run at MB6, 2.1mm isotropic resolution, TR=1s, AP > phase encoding, 32-channel head coil on a 3T Skyra; hopefully that gives us > a similar temporal profile. > > It’s not much about the acquisition protocol (though in the multiband era, > MB is now related to scanner transmitter stability), but rather the scanner > stability itself. > > > Sounds like I should compare our temporal stability against the HCP's - > is there a measure you recommend? > > HCP Connectom Skyra scanner has quite small temporal drift and a very > linear trend (specific to the gradient and body coil hardware > characteristics), which a typical Skyra can’t match. To determine what > detrending cutoff you should use for your site-specific data, you could run > a 5-10min fBIRN phantom scan with your fMRI protocol and look at the > scanner stability. > > _______________________________________________ > HCP-Users mailing list > HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org > http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users > _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
