Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

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 wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 9:03 PM,

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Ely, Benjamin 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

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Ely, Benjamin 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

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

Hi Michael, My initial interest was in comparing aggressive vs. soft regression of the noise ICs. When I tried simply regressing them out using fsl_regfilt with and without the -a flag, though, I realized that my soft denoised file didn't match the HCP denoised file, so this became more of an

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

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. Sounds like I should compare our temporal

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

.edu>>, "HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>" <HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org<mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>> Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets Hi Greg, Thank you very much for your detaile

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

Hi Greg, Thank you very much for your detailed response! I have now generated a Movement_Regressors.mat file with the correct 24 parameters (6 rigid body, 6 derivatives, 6 rigid body squared, 6 derivatives squared). As I didn't have code handy to run highpass filtering on the movement

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

quot; <gburg...@wustl.edu <mailto:gburg...@wustl.edu>>, > "HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org <mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>" > <HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org <mailto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>> > Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs.

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

lto:HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org>> Subject: Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets Hi Matt and Greg, Thanks for the feedback! I've looked at the various fix .m files from the current release; based on fix_3_clean.m, I tried the following for a single resting-

Re: [HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

Hi Matt and Greg, Thanks for the feedback! I've looked at the various fix .m files from the current release; based on fix_3_clean.m, I tried the following for a single resting-state run: # highpass filter; sigma of 1000.08 = FWHM of 2355 per Smith et al 2013 NeuroImage, also consistent with

[HCP-Users] MELODIC denoising vs. released ICA-FIX datasets

Hi all, I ran a test recently comparing "aggressive" vs. "soft" denoising in MELODIC on an HCP resting-state run, regressing out the "bad" components found in the rfMRI_REST1_LR_hp2000.ica/.fix file (I believe the location of this info is different in the newer release but I'm working off