Gardner Lab

loc4_rV3A(6): beautiful curve, but not tiered as expected. this is the inner tip of the entire V3A roi, but the localizers seem to weakly agree. loc4 is right next to loc1.

loc1_rV3A(4): see explanation for loc4_rV3A. nice curve, but no tiering.

loc1_rhV4(11): sort of tiered. large amp.

loc4_rhV4(7): may be cut off… HDR response is nice, however.

loc1_rV2v(16): nice large responses, a little jaggedy for 12.5 but tiered.

loc4_rV2d(11): noisy for 12.5 and 25%, but 50% is very prominent. this tiereing does not occur for other overlays, so this is the correct location… HDR not so nice for 12.5 and 25, however.

loc4_rV2d_NEG(5): on edge. these aren't as sharp as NEGs of s012. but tiering is seen post initial dip…

loc1_rV2v_NEG(10): on edge. same as loc4_rV2d_NEG comments.

loc1_rV3v(25): sharp looking HDRm but nice, large response with tiering.

loc4_rV3d(4): clean HDRs, but tiering is not nice… roi is split, and hand drawn. follows localizer, but not very confident.

loc4_rV3d_tooSmall(9): this is the roi that we decided on with localizer.

loc4_rV1(14): ziggidy, but HDR response with 50% being highest amp.

loc4_rV1_NEG(22): mild with appropriate tiering.

loc1_rV1(12): big responses. not totally smooth.

loc1_rV1_NEG(9): mild, but prominent.

loc2_lV2v_NEG(14): mild.

loc2_lV2v(6):as nice as I can manage… weak, but it is one patch.

loc2_lV2v_NEG(14): mild. on edge.

loc2_lV3v(22): split into 3, segmentation looks bad here. hole in the roi.

loc2_lhV4(3): really diffuse, but several individual good voxels split over a sulcus… segmentation?

loc2_lV7

loc2_lV3A(26): super on edge, tiering not seen, but hese voxels disappear in ped3 eranal, so must be loc2 specific.

loc3_lV3A(16): super on edge, but and even less tiering than loc2.

loc3_hV4(4): split into 2, but few voxels with good responses. 50% is highest.

loc3_lV3d(11): tiny single patch, but tiered, no nice HDR, but peaks visible.

loc3_lV2d(17): again, jaggedy, but peaks visible…

loc3_lV1(17): looks like a double hump due to pre-peak drop in some voxels. but if i disclude those, i end up with so few voxels…

loc2_lV1(12): not clean, but HDR, and in the right place. much larger responses, tiered.

loc2_lV1(11): handdrawn. localizer weak, but correct phase. tiering is not prominent…

[]

V1: {15,1}[ok ? ? ok].rOK.l?.all?

V2: {15,1}[ok ? ? ok].rOK.l?.all?

V3: {15,1}[ok ? ? ok].rOK.l?.all?

V3A: {15,1}[noTier ? ? noTier].rOK,noTier.l?.all?

hV4: {15,1}[tiers ? ? ok…].rOK, but tiering flipped.l?.all?

all {15,1}

V1: [ok ok ok ok].concat is good!

V2: works!!

V3: bad. should redo V3 rois.

hV4: ones and twos inverted.

V3A: {15,1}[fits,but… ? ? ok,but… ].r:cueOne is lower than Cue2, but cued is higher than uncued.l?.all?

V3A: ones and twos inverted.

V1: [ok ok ok ok].concat is ok, but graphs show a bit of ambiguity.

V2: messy

V3: [].concat is bad… especially for cueTwo. should clean up rois.

hV4: not too great. ones larger than twos. but in general, cued is larger than uncued.

V3A: ones and twos inverted…