Brainstorm workshop survey: Biomag-2012 satellite

This was the fourth large-scale Brainstorm workshop. For the first time, we included short presentations from experimented Brainstorm users. We also distributed a short survey to help us improve the structure and contents of future workshops training sessions, and obtain general feedback about the software. This page presents the results of this survey.

Selected comments from attendees:

• "Excellent! How do you fit a mountain into just one day"

• "The online tutorial is excellent, but some details are useful to be seen on class"

• "Very good pace, everything became very clear. Immediate help with individual problems was helpful to follow the further class"

• "Very clear hands-on session, great communication with the audience"

• "Very clear presentation, given at an easy-to-follow pace"

• "Now I can start to analyze my data by myself. I'm happy. Many thanks."

• "Tadel's teaching is very good - more of that!"

• "That was amazing!"

• "Super useful :)"

• "Perfect!"

• "Hope that you will complete the causality tool soon. Extremely interesting option!!!"

Survey results

Number of participants: 55
Number of returned documents: 42 (76%)
Link to the pdf document.

Summary

1. Before today's class, how would you describe your use of Brainstorm:
   • Never used: 45%
   • Some simulation work: 10%
   • Some experimental work: 31%
   • Experience user: 7%
   • N/A: 7%
2. How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(best) to 5(worst)
   • 1: 52%
   • 2: 26%
   • 3: 12%
   • 4: 7%
   • 5: 0%
   • N/A: 2%
3. Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
   • Yes: 52%
   • No: 40%
   • N/A: 7%
4. Was today's presentation by other Brainstorm researchers useful in better understanding how to apply the software?
   • Yes: 67%
   • No: 24%
   • N/A: 10%
5. Immediate plans for using Brainstorm:
   • Yes: 57%
   • No: 0%
   • N/A: 43%
6. Particularly enthusiastic responses (explicit congratulations, encouragement messages, many exclamation marks, smileys):
   • Yes: 26%

Results encoding

1. 1=Never used, 2=Some simulation work, 3=Some experimental work, 4=Experienced user, 0=NA
2. How helpful: 1(best) to 5(worst), 0=N/A
3. Online tutorials before coming: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
4. User presentations are useful: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
5. Future use: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
6. Extra enthusiasm: 1=No, 2=Yes

Results values

1. 2 4 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 0 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 0 3 1 1 0 1 4 1
2. 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
3. 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 1
4. 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
5. 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
6. 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Comments and suggestions

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

Comments about the workshop

Pace:

• Very good pace: 7

• A bit rushed at some moments: 2
• Too slow at some moments: 3
• Too much time spent on sensors overview / pre-processing: 2
• Questions from the audience should be taken at the end of each phase: 1

Structure:

• Two-day workshop: 2
• One-week workshop (SPM-like): 1
• Two groups for people with different backgrounds: 1
• Follow-up training with priority to today's participants: 1
• Some time for having people use their own data: 2

User presentations:

• Should be more related to the software and methods, how the analysis were performed: 9

• Waiting too long before starting the practice / presentations should be after the practice: 3

• Less presentations: 2
• Presentations are not necessary in a one-day workshop: 1

Technical issues:

• Graphic cards problems: 2
• Computer was too slow: 1

Missing topics and requests

• More statistics / group analysis: 7

• More methodological details, good practice & cooking recipes: 5

• More connectivity: 3

• Scripting: 2
• Preparation of the MRI: 2
• EEG analysis: 2
• Medical applications: 1
• Baby/infant MEG analysis: 1
• More time-frequency: 1
• Forward and inverse modeling: 1
• Other source reconstruction methods: 1
• More scientific background for less experienced MEG users: 1
• How to handle multiple runs: 1
• Creating structure of data to plug in already processed data: 1

Missing tools in Brainstorm

• ANOVA, clustering analysis: 1
• Yokogawa MEG160 support: 1

Planning to use Brainstorm specifically for:

• Connectivity: 10

• Source reconstruction: 5

• Pre-processing: 4

• EEG: 7
• MEG: 5
• Baby/infant: 3
• Epilepsy: 2
• Time-frequency: 2
• Comparison with Matti's MNE: 1

Comments about the survey questions

• First question: 1(best) and 5(worst):

  • Very counter-intuitive given the amount of people who wrote 5 saying then "Amazing workshop!" => Converting to ones

  • 4 values with no comments are difficult to interpret
• Question about the tutorials:
  • Not easy to understand given the number off-subject responses
  • Maybe we should add a question about the quality of the online tutorials, not the comparison with the class
• Question about the future use of Brainstorm:
  • Too many people didn't write anything, it was probably too open
  • Maybe we should offer a multiple choice. What are you planning to use Brainstorm for: EEG, MEG, pre-processing, source analysis, time-frequency, connectivity, clinical, research, simulation...