You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given the nice set of QA measures available in the ABIDE data
Idea: I think it would be interesting to compare site-to-site differences in different QA measures --- as an index of site effects stemming from physiological/nuisance artifiacts.
If we have these, we should be able to compare if better site effect correction reduces how much subject to subject global connectivity is correlated with these artifiacts. [As a very elementary thing to check/illustrate with a few lines of code]
From tutorial/pedagogial perspective: This both serves as an important motivation/need for site effect correction in multi-site studies as well as index of reducing such confounds. Very like how powers does pure motion to connectivity correlation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given the nice set of QA measures available in the ABIDE data
Idea: I think it would be interesting to compare site-to-site differences in different QA measures --- as an index of site effects stemming from physiological/nuisance artifiacts.
http://preprocessed-connectomes-project.org/abide/quality_assessment.html
If we have these, we should be able to compare if better site effect correction reduces how much subject to subject global connectivity is correlated with these artifiacts. [As a very elementary thing to check/illustrate with a few lines of code]
From tutorial/pedagogial perspective: This both serves as an important motivation/need for site effect correction in multi-site studies as well as index of reducing such confounds. Very like how powers does pure motion to connectivity correlation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: