Discussed in #29
Originally posted by BoyuanSong May 21, 2025
Dear Denis Brunet,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am a PhD student at UCL currently working on a project involving topography-based analysis. As part of my research, I utilize averaged epileptiform spikes to generate topographical IED maps, which are then correlated with EEGs recorded inside the scanner using the 'Fitting' procedure in Cartool. In this process, spikes are averaged, and the EEG voltage map corresponding to the peak of the Global Field Power (GFP) of the average spike is considered as the epileptic map(template for 'fitting').
While re-analyzing cases originally processed in 2012, I noticed that the 'Fitting' results differ when re-running the same cases in 2025. To illustrate the issue:
Figure 1: 'Fitting' result from 2012
Figure 2: Corresponding .vrb file from 2012
Figure 3: 'Fitting' result from 2025
Figure 4: Corresponding .vrb file from 2025
I would greatly appreciate any insights you might have regarding potential reasons for this discrepancy. Could this be related to changes in parameter settings, or might it be due to updates in Cartool over the years?
Thank you very much in advance for your time and support.
Kind regards,
Boyuan
Figure 1. 'Fitting' result from 2012
Figure 2. Corresponding .vrb file from 2012
Figure 3. 'Fitting' result from 2025
Figure 4. Corresponding .vrb file from 2025
Discussed in #29
Originally posted by BoyuanSong May 21, 2025
Dear Denis Brunet,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am a PhD student at UCL currently working on a project involving topography-based analysis. As part of my research, I utilize averaged epileptiform spikes to generate topographical IED maps, which are then correlated with EEGs recorded inside the scanner using the 'Fitting' procedure in Cartool. In this process, spikes are averaged, and the EEG voltage map corresponding to the peak of the Global Field Power (GFP) of the average spike is considered as the epileptic map(template for 'fitting').
While re-analyzing cases originally processed in 2012, I noticed that the 'Fitting' results differ when re-running the same cases in 2025. To illustrate the issue:
Figure 1: 'Fitting' result from 2012
Figure 2: Corresponding .vrb file from 2012
Figure 3: 'Fitting' result from 2025
Figure 4: Corresponding .vrb file from 2025
I would greatly appreciate any insights you might have regarding potential reasons for this discrepancy. Could this be related to changes in parameter settings, or might it be due to updates in Cartool over the years?
Thank you very much in advance for your time and support.
Kind regards,
Boyuan
Figure 1. 'Fitting' result from 2012
Figure 2. Corresponding .vrb file from 2012
Figure 3. 'Fitting' result from 2025
Figure 4. Corresponding .vrb file from 2025