[Mne_analysis] question regarding mne_do_forward_solution

[Denis-Alexander Engemann]

Hi Andrew,

to add to this, as I understood it, the reason for this is that channels selected are taken into account by the leadfield computation. In case, raw and average  include different channels (as often is the case) you might get slightly different results.
Anyone correct me if I'm mistaken.

Cheers,
Denis


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM, dgw <dgwakeman at gmail.com<mailto:dgwakeman at gmail.com>> wrote:
HI Andrew,

My reading of that is that you should use an average file for --meas
if you are processing averaged data, and a raw file if you are
processing raw data. I do not believe that there are any issues with
having multiple average files from the same raw data file and only
using one forward solution calculated from one of the average files.
Just that it is not recommended that you use the raw file to generate
the forward solution.

as always if I'm wrong please say so

HTH
D
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew R. Dykstra
<andrew.r.dykstra at gmail.com<mailto:andrew.r.dykstra at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a reason for the following text regarding the --meas argument of
> mne_do_forward_solution:
>
> "It is recommended that the average file is employed for evoked-response
> data and the original raw data file otherwise."
>
> If all the measurement file contributes is the sensor location/orientation
> info and the device-head transform, does it matter from which file - raw or
> averaged - these data are pulled?  The quoted text from the manual would
> suggest that a new forward solution be computed for each average file even
> if they all derive from the same raw measurement, but that doesn't seem to
> make sense.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mne_analysis mailing list
> Mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/mne_analysis
>
>
> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the
> e-mail
> contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance
> HelpLine at
> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in
> error
> but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and
> properly
> dispose of the e-mail.
>
_______________________________________________
Mne_analysis mailing list
Mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/mne_analysis



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail/mne_analysis/attachments/20130128/b607f986/attachment.html