Dear Greg,
Thank you very much for your kind reply. Yes, it indeed makes sense to account for "NLR", which we didn't considered before. I rechecked the raw data and then have another doubt. Let's take participant No.100206 for example. In the integrated behavioral data table, the "WM_Task_2bk_Face_Acc" score is 81.25, which indicates that there are some NLR trials for him/her. However, in the raw trial-level data (20 trials in total, attached), there is no "NonResp" trials, and the Stim.RT were all recorded within the limitation of 2.5s. The Stim.ACC has 3 errors, therefore the accuracy is 17/20=0.85. I've no idea where I made a mistake for this difference. Could you please help figure it out? Thanks a lot. Best regards, Xinyang At 2019-03-13 01:39:29, "Burgess, Gregory" <gburg...@wustl.edu> wrote: Hello Xinyang, Most likely, you haven’t accounted for “NLR”, which stands for “no logged responses”. If the response period timed out without an overt response, we can’t be sure whether the participant would have made a correct response or an error response. Since NLRs are neither correct or error trials, they’re omitted from the accuracy calculations like missing data might be handled. For example, if a condition had 4 NLRs, 13 correct responses and 3 error responses, they could have an accuracy rate of 81.25% = [ 100 x 13 / (20 - 4) ]. Hope this helps! --Greg ____________________________________________________________________ Greg Burgess, Ph.D. Senior Scientist, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry Phone: 314-362-7864 Email: gburg...@wustl.edu On Mar 12, 2019, at 7:44 AM, Xinyang Liu <xinyang_ie...@163.com> wrote: Dear HCP experts, Hi. We are currently analyzing the behavioral accuracy scores from the Working Memory(WM) tfMRI task. However, we found an inconsistency between computed accuracy scores from the WM trial-level raw data and the "WM_Task_2bk_*_Acc" analyzed data columns in the integrated behavioral data file downloaded from the HCP website (named "unrestricted"). We attached an example in this email, showing that the average values of "LR" and "RL" raw scores are not equal to the analyzed values, although they have a trend to match each other. There are 20 trials (LR an RL) together in each task. However, the analyzed scores like "68.75" or "81.25" does not seem to be computed based on 20 trials as a total number. Was there any deletion of trials during processing? If so, what is the reason to do this? Another thing we found is that, for some participants, like No.104012 (not shown in the example file), they have raw behavioral data in the data boxes, but the results were not provided in the analyzed behavioral data file. What is the reason for that? We would be very appreciated to receive any feedbacks. Thank you very much! Best regards, Xinyang _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users <Example of accuracy inconsistency.xlsx> The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
subID task_name trial_number trial.RT trial.ACC 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 1 741 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 2 1202 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 3 772 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 4 840 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 5 881 0 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 6 1019 0 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 7 806 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 8 736 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 9 910 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_RL 10 1005 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 1 535 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 2 537 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 3 759 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 4 759 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 5 693 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 6 889 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 7 687 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 8 763 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 9 743 1 100206 WM_2-Back_Face_LR 10 989 0
