That's going to cause problems eventually. The easiest thing to do is to
simply redefine some of the non-error trials to be errors. If you have a
lot of trials, then losing 3 will not be a big deal. You only need to
redefine one of each type across all runs. It's a little hokey, but it
solves the booking problem.
doug
Dan Dillon wrote:
Dear FreeSurfers,
We are running a paradigm that occasionally elicits erroneous
responses from subjects. In our mkanalysis step, we have 13
conditions--10 are legit, and codes 11, 12, 13 correspond to various
kinds of errors. Thus, we only use the first 10 codes in mkcontrast,
etc. However, occasionally we have a subject who makes no errors. How
should we account for this? Is it okay to just change the # of
conditions in the mkanalysis .info file (from 13 to 10) and then run
selxavg on these folks? Can we then average their data in with people
who have all 13 conditions?
Thanks!
Dan Dillon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
--
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone Number: 617-724-2358
Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in:
surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
