Brainstorm workshop survey: Montreal 2018
Selected comments from attendees
The workshop was very well organized.
I felt that it was very comprehensive and helpful.
Overall really great!!
Survey results
Number of participants: 30
Number of returned documents: 26 (87%)
Link to the pdf document.
Summary
- Before today's class, how would you describe your use of Brainstorm:
Never used: 50%
- Some simulation work: 8%
- Some experimental work: 38%
- Experienced user: 4%
- How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(worst) to 5(best)
- 1: 0%
- 2: 0%
- 3: 0%
- 4: 42%
5: 58%
- Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
- Yes: 35%
- No: 65%
- Interested in using Brainstorm for:
- EEG: 88%
- MEG: 46%
- MEG+EEG: 38%
- NIRS: 4%
- sEEG/ECoG: 0%
- Scripting: 31%
- Pre-processing: 46%
- Visualization of recordings: 46%
- Source analysis: 73%
- Time-frequency: 73%
- Functional connectivity: 50%
- Statistics: 27%
- Research: 62%
- Clinical applications: 19%
- Epilepsy: 15%
- Baby / infant studies: 0%
Comments and suggestions
The number indicates the number of participants who made similar comments.
Comments about the workshop
- Good clarity: 7
- Good pace: 11
- Sometimes too fast: 9
- Sometimes too slow: 2
- Two days would be better: 2
- More information about process options: 2
Missing topics and requests
- Statistics: 4
- EEG topics: 3
- More information on source methods: 3
- Group analysis: 2
- Resting-state analysis: 2
- Cross-frequency coupling: 1
- Best practices: 1
- More time on data collection and registration: 1
- Epilespy: 1
- More connectivity methods: 1
- More scripting: 1
- Individual research question session: 1
Missing tools in Brainstorm
- Automated rejection of artifacts: 1
- PET and fMRI co-registration: 1
- Anatomy preprocessing: 1
Conversion to EEGLAB / FieldTrip file formats: 1
- More advanced and customized graphing: 1
- Getting eye movement data from BDF files: 1
- Categorizing publications on the website: 1
- Single-trial analysis: 1
- More video tutorials: 1