[Eeglablist] Random selection of trials

[Tim Curran]

On Apr 2, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Kris Baetens wrote:
> @ Tim curran: I have read Luck's book and I clearly see why using different trials in case of 
> peak measures (which we do not use) might be problematic. However, I can't quite understand why 
> average amplitudes would be 'immune' to this sort of problem; I think sensitivity to this 
> problem decreases as the number of time points in your average window increases? (In extremis:
> an average amplitude of two time points would, in the same logic as he discribes, still be extremely 
> vulnerable, no?) 

I had the same question/doubt when I first read this.  I had long email discussions with Luck about it, and actually ended up writing a simulation in order to convince myself that he was right.  The bottom line is that I cannot explain it myself, but I became convinced that he is correct.
Tim