Two small comments:

1) As noted in Barch et al. 2013, the EMOTION and LANGUAGE tasks do not include 
a fixation baseline condition. Therefore, activation estimates for an 
individual condition (e.g., Fearful faces) will not be valid. The only valid 
estimates are between conditions (Fearful faces vs. neutral shapes).

2) I mis-spoke below. Feat automatically demeans the timeseries data and the 
design matrix (rather than adding a B0 intercept term to the GLM). Either way, 
you should not demean the task data before running it through Feat.

--Greg

____________________________________________________________________
Greg Burgess, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist, Human Connectome Project
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Neuroscience
Phone: 314-362-7864
Email: [email protected]

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Greg Burgess <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Nico,
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2015, at 9:39 AM, ZUO, Nico <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear HCP Colleagues,
>> 
>> Here I want to obtain an group-average areas for a task activation, for 
>> example for the Emotion task, and I want to get the activation areas either 
>> from FEAR or NEUT task by constrast to the fixation duration. The HCP 
>> website said that the Q1 release contained such kind of (mybe) data,
>> 
>> http://www.humanconnectome.org/documentation/Q1/data-in-this-release.html#group_average
>>  , called HCP_Q1_GroupAvgUnrelated20.zip, however I did’nt find the entrance 
>> for downloading from the HCP database. I am not sure it is not available any 
>> more.
> 
> 
> If at all possible, you should move to the latest releases of task fMRI data 
> (500 subjects and 900subjects data releases). The later releases include 
> subject-level (aka Level 2) FEAT outputs, making it unnecessary to run FEAT 
> on the minimally-preprocessed images at all!
> 
> 
>> Additionally, if I want to find these activation areas from the minimally 
>> processed data (the path in the S500 release (based on volume data) is like 
>> “…100307/MNINonLinear/Results/tfMRI_EMOTION_LR…”), but I have a little 
>> confusion about the adhered .fsf file, tfMRI_EMOTION_LR_hp200_s4_level1.fsf 
>> .  The processed task fMRI volume data, for example, 
>> tfMRI_EMOTION_LR.nii.gz, has been detrened, but not been regressed out the 
>> head motion (although it contains the transformation file, 
>> Movement_Regressors.txt ) and white matter/CSF.  And it has not been 
>> filtered to removing the noise. I am not sure my understanding is right ?   
>> However, it seems that the confiuration file, 
>> tfMRI_EMOTION_LR_hp200_s4_level1.fsf, is directly acting on the unpolished 
>> data, tfMRI_EMOTION_LR.nii.gz.  I am not sure it is right for calling 
>> FSL/Feat ?
> 
> 
> The level1 fsf files are only included for reference or for modification. If 
> it is your goal to include nuisance confound regressors, then it may be 
> worthwhile. Otherwise, stop and use the publicly available analyzed feat 
> outputs.
> 
> Additional information about the processing is also available in the follow 
> two papers:
> Barch, D. M., Burgess, G. C., Harms, M. P., Petersen, S. E., Schlaggar, B. 
> L., Corbetta, M., et al. (2013). Function in the human connectome: Task-fMRI 
> and individual differences in behavior. NeuroImage, 80, 169–189. 
> http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.033
> Glasser, M. F., Sotiropoulos, S. N., Wilson, J. A., Coalson, T. S., Fischl, 
> B., Andersson, J. L., et al. (2013). The minimal preprocessing pipelines for 
> the Human Connectome Project. NeuroImage, 80, 105–124. 
> http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.127
> 
> I will try to answer some of your questions here. The minimally-preprocessed 
> image files (for example, tfMRI_EMOTION_LR.nii.gz) have NOT been demeaned or 
> detrended. The minimal preprocessing for NIFTI volume files essentially 
> performs distortion corrections, rigid-body motion correction, and 
> registration to a group-template (see Glasser et al Figure 19). The CIFTI 
> grayordinate files map voxels to surface and subcortical gray matter, which 
> involves some resampling and minimal spatial smoothing (Glasser et al Figure 
> 20).
> 
> The Feat lower-level analysis subsequently performed spatial smoothing (4mm 
> FWHM in volume, or several different levels of smoothing in CIFTI 
> grayordinates), highpass temporal filtering (using fslmaths -bptf with 200 
> second cutoff), and prewhitening using FILM. There are no additional confound 
> regressors removed from the data (e.g., no regression of motion parameters, 
> CSF or WM, motion spike regressors, FIX noise regressors). Be forewarned that 
> these tend to overlap with the task design regressors. More details are 
> included in Barch et al. 2013.
> 
> 
>> Another question is for processing the filtered/regressed/demean-ed 
>> tfMRI_EMOTION_LR.nii.gz (I assumed my above understanding is right so I 
>> continue to try…).  The demean-ed task fMRI data is floating around 0, for 
>> example [-310, 320]. Unfortunately the FSL/Feat is not able to generate the 
>> mask during the “Prestats” step, the log file is as follows,
> 
> 
> It is not correct to run analyses using Feat on demeaned data. Feat will 
> remove the mean for you by including a B0 intercept term in the GLM.
> 
> It is possible to run Feat analyses using the FSL Feat_Gui. However, there 
> are optimizations in the process, especially the analysis of surface data in 
> CIFTI format, if you use the Task fMRI HCP Pipelines available at 
> https://github.com/Washington-University/Pipelines
> 
> 
> --Greg
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Greg Burgess, Ph.D.
> Staff Scientist, Human Connectome Project
> Washington University School of Medicine
> Department of Neuroscience
> Phone: 314-362-7864
> Email: [email protected]
> 
> 
>> 
>> <log>
>> 
>> ……
>> 
>> Prestats
>> 
>> /mnt/software/fsl5.0/bin/fslstats prefiltered_func_data -p 2 -p 98
>> 
>> -114.3    125.35
>> 
>> /mnt/software/fsl5.0/bin/fslmaths prefiltered_func_data -thr  -108.2  -Tmin 
>> -bin mask -odt char
>> 
>> ……
>> 
>> </log>
>> 
>> Certainly here the function “fslmaths” is definitely not able to generate a 
>> meaningful mask by the “-108.2  -Tmin” parameters since the data distribute 
>> on the both sides of 0. Since the HC data has already been stripped, so the 
>> mask.nii.gz is already there (Actually the “-Tmin” doesn’t make any sense 
>> here).  Maybe this question should be posted to the FSL forum, but it is 
>> related to the HCP data so I posted it here too.
>> 
>> Any reponse would be Appreciated. Thank you.
>> 
>> Nico Zuo
>> 
>> --
>> Institute of Automation
>> Chinese Academy of Sciences
>> Beijing 100190, China
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> HCP-Users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
>> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
HCP-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users

Reply via email to