= Brainstorm workshop survey: Baltimore, USA 2019 =
== Survey results ==
Number of participants: 26<<BR>>Number of returned documents: 15<<BR>>[[http://neuroimage.usc.edu/brainstorm/WorkshopLosAngeles2015Survey?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=workshop_survey.pdf|Link to the pdf document]].

=== Summary ===
 1. Before today's class, how would you describe your use of Brainstorm:
  * Never used: '''73%'''
  * Some simulation work: 7%
  * Some experimental work: 7%
  * Experienced user: 13%
 1. How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(worst) to 5(best)
  * 1: 0%
  * 2: 0%
  * 3: 7%
  * 4: 13%
  * 5: '''80%'''
 1. Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
  * Yes: 33%
  * No: 67%
 1. Interested in using Brainstorm for:
  * EEG: 86%
  * MEG: 0%
  * MEG+EEG: 7%
  * NIRS: 14%
  * sEEG/ECoG: 21%
  * Scripting: 21%
  * Pre-processing: 71%
  * Visualization of recordings: 79%
  * Source analysis: 57%
  * Time-frequency: 50%
  * Functional connectivity: 57%
  * Statistics: 57%
  * Research: 50%
  * Clinical applications: 36%
  * Epilepsy: 14%
  * Baby / infant studies: 0%

== Comments and suggestions ==
The number indicates the number of participants who made similar comments.

=== Comments about the workshop ===
 * Good clarity: 10
 * Good pace: 9
 * Sometimes too fast: 3
 * More time spent on theoretical lectures

=== Missing topics and requests ===
 * More time spent on statistics: 3
 * More time spent on connectivity: 2
 * Explanations on underlying math formulas of methods used
 * Considerations of processing large recordings

=== Missing tools in Brainstorm ===
 * To combine electrophysiology with fMRI data
 * A robust pre-processing code-based pipeline
 * Tutorial on ECoG data
 * Deep Brain Stimulation