[Eeglablist] runica concatenate

[Makoto Miyakoshi]

Dear Dorian (and Stephen, with my deep gratitude for helping others off the
list as you sometimes do; but sorry for being spotted you in this way),

If you did not more/remove the electrode cap, yes you may concatenate them
as Stephen says. That's the only critical thing.

Makoto

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Dorian Grelli <dorian.grelli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Steve. Yes, in theory is correct but I am not so sure about the
> results. The component are so similar between the phases and I am worried
> about losing the time course effect, which is really interesting for us.
> This is the reason why I asked. I will look up at the other discussion on
> the topic.
>
> Cheers,
> Dorian
> Il 04/Nov/2015 21:04, "Stephen Politzer-Ahles" <
> stephen.politzer-ahles at ling-phil.ox.ac.uk> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Dorian,
>>
>> In this case it should be fine to concatenate the datasets, as they're
>> really from the same recording anyway. If you look through old messages on
>> the list you will find some similar discussions, and the times when it's
>> more problematic to concatenate are e.g. when the recordings are from
>> different days (where the person took the cap off and then came back and
>> put it on again, perhaps not in the exact same place each time) or very
>> different tasks (for example one where the participant is passively viewing
>> stimuli and then a separate recording where the person is walking around
>> and talking and eating food). But in this case, since the recordings come
>> from the same session and the same task, it makes sense to concatenate them.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Stephen Politzer-Ahles
>> University of Oxford
>> Language and Brain Lab, Faculty of Linguistics, Phonetics & Philology
>> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~cpgl0080/
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Dorian Grelli <dorian.grelli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have my study with 16 different subjects. Each subjects was exposed at
>>> the same condition for 60 minutes and EEG was recorded. After recording I
>>> got 6 different datasets per each subject (each dataset is 10 minutes)
>>> because I am interested in time course and I want to compare different
>>> phase inside the 60 minutes recording. In order to obtain a more reliable
>>> ICA, I am running runica and I concatenate all the dataset from the same
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> The point is that, with this concatenation, I get very similar
>>> components (not 100% the same but very very similar) in different datasets
>>> of the same subject. I know it's quite normal that they are similar because
>>> the subject is the same in the same condition but I'm supposing that is
>>> something wrong in what I am doing. Since it is very time comsuming run ICA
>>> and then remove artifactual components (manually) I want to be sure.
>>> Is it corret to concatenate the datasete in order to obtain a better ICA?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance!
>>>
>>> Dorian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
>>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
>>> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
>>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
>>> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
>



-- 
Makoto Miyakoshi
Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/attachments/20151127/5bfe944b/attachment.html>