2001
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0710
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Separating Processes within a Trial in Event-Related Functional MRI

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
291
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 403 publications
(294 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
291
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Task-related BOLD responses were analyzed in stages. First, we examined individual participant responses in each paradigm (Braille, auditory) by using the general linear model (20)(21)(22). Response strength was estimated by using a regressor obtained by convolution of the (six-frame) task plus control epochs with a standard hemodynamic response model (23).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Task-related BOLD responses were analyzed in stages. First, we examined individual participant responses in each paradigm (Braille, auditory) by using the general linear model (20)(21)(22). Response strength was estimated by using a regressor obtained by convolution of the (six-frame) task plus control epochs with a standard hemodynamic response model (23).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Areas matching our anatomical criteria and lying closest to the corresponding reference cluster (resulting from the random-effects analysis for differential contrasts; p uncorrected \ 0.0001; T = 6.4) were considered as their appropriate equivalents on the single subject level. Time series of the mean voxel value, within a 4-mm-radius sphere around the local peak of the areas of interest, was calculated and extracted from our eventrelated sessions using finite impulse response (FIR) models (Ollinger et al 2001). The convolution of a reference hemodynamic response function with boxcars, representing the onsets and durations of the experimental conditions, was used to define the regressors for a general linear model analysis of the data.…”
Section: Imaging Parameters and Data Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Images were smoothed using a Gaussian filter with a FWHM of 1.2 voxels. We used the general linear model to estimate the finite impulse response (FIR; Ollinger et al, 2001) associated with each stimulus event. For each stimulus event, a stimulus convolution matrix (SCM) was defined, i.e., a matrix operator representation of the time-discretized convolution with the event sequence (Ollinger et al, 2001).…”
Section: Fmri Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the general linear model to estimate the finite impulse response (FIR; Ollinger et al, 2001) associated with each stimulus event. For each stimulus event, a stimulus convolution matrix (SCM) was defined, i.e., a matrix operator representation of the time-discretized convolution with the event sequence (Ollinger et al, 2001). This was accomplished by placing a 1 in the row, corresponding to the time at which each image was acquired, and in the column, corresponding to the appropriate point of the hemodynamic response.…”
Section: Fmri Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%