= 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'''<<BR>>Number of returned documents: '''42 '''(76%)<<BR>>[[attachment:workshop_survey.pdf|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%
 1. 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%
 1. Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
  * Yes: 52%
  * No:  40%
  * N/A:   7%
 1. Was today's presentation by other Brainstorm researchers useful in better understanding how to apply the software?
  * Yes: 67%
  * No:  24%
  * N/A:  10%
 1. Immediate plans for using Brainstorm:
  * Yes: 57%
  * No:   0%
  * N/A:  43%
 1. 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
 1. How helpful: 1(best) to 5(worst), 0=N/A
 1. Online tutorials before coming: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
 1. User presentations are useful: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
 1. Future use: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A
 1. 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
 1. 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
 1. 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
 1. 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
 1. 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
 1. 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...