= Brainstorm workshop survey: Biomag 2012 = This was the fourth large-scale Brainstorm workshop. For the first time, we integrated presentations from experimented Brainstorm users. We also distributed a short survey to help us improving the structure and contents of those workshops, and getting general feedback about the software. This page presents the results of this survey. == Some citations == * ''"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%)<
>[[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, 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. Try the online tutorials before coming: 1=No, 2=Yes, 0=N/A 1. User presentations 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 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 just 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...