Brainstorm workshop survey: Los Angeles 2015

Selected comments from attendees

• "Very clear! The UI and apparent robustness of the software helped a lot with clarity."

• "Well paced, relatively easy to keep pace, even as a beginner user."

• "Lot of information, but well paced."

• "Answered all questions clearly."

• "Excellent!"

Survey results

Number of participants: 24
Number of returned documents: 19 (79%)
Link to the pdf document.

Summary

1. Before today's class, how would you describe your use of Brainstorm:

   • Never used: 68%

   • Some simulation work: 5%
   • Some experimental work: 27%
   • Experienced user: 0%
2. How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(worst) to 5(best)
   • 1: 0%
   • 2: 0%
   • 3: 10%
   • 4: 16%

   • 5: 74%

3. Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
   • Yes: 68%
   • No: 32%
4. Interested in using Brainstorm for:
   • EEG: 100%
   • MEG: 21%
   • MEG+EEG: 10%
   • NIRS: 10%
   • sEEG/ECoG: 10%
   • Scripting: 32%
   • Pre-processing: 68%
   • Visualization of recordings: 74%
   • Source analysis: 68%
   • Time-frequency: 63%
   • Functional connectivity: 47%
   • Statistics: 63%
   • Research: 74%
   • Clinical applications: 21%
   • Epilepsy: 10%
   • Baby / child studies: 5%

Comments and suggestions

The number indicates the number of participants who made similar comments.

Comments about the workshop

• Good clarity: 16

• Good pace: 12

• A bit slow: 3
• Uneven pace: 1
• Need more short breaks: 1
• Too much time on personal questions: 1
• Some advertised topics were not covered: 2
• Need more time / two days: 2

Missing topics and requests

• Connectivity: 3
• EEG examples (digitizer, ECoG positions): 3
• EEG/SEEG examples (recordings): 3
• Interface with command line Matlab: 2
• More on frequency analysis: 1

Missing tools in Brainstorm

• Integration with fMRI: 2
• Realtime processing and display: 2