You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I follow the pipeline to do quality control for my raw fMRI data. There are 29 subjects' data files while only 4 are extracted. Besides, only 2 files get the voting results.
I'm wondering whether there are any problems for the data extraction process for raw data. And in the voting process, why did the other two files lose their voting results?
Thanks for your effort!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The issue might arise from multiple reasons that require step-by-step checking of the data, such as the Paravision version, sequence type, folder structure, etc. I suggest (for the fastest way to get results) transforming your data to NIfTI first (you can do this using any method you know, or by using our AIDAmri conv2nifti script) and then running AIDAqc on the NIfTI files. The current version of AIDAqc works much more stably on NIfTI data.
For the voting list, note that only subjects with at least one vote will be listed. Therefore, any file not in the list was not flagged by any of the outlier detection algorithms. For further questions, I suggest joining our open office hours to discuss this in more detail 😊.
I follow the pipeline to do quality control for my raw fMRI data. There are 29 subjects' data files while only 4 are extracted. Besides, only 2 files get the voting results.
I'm wondering whether there are any problems for the data extraction process for raw data. And in the voting process, why did the other two files lose their voting results?
Thanks for your effort!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: