Brainstorm workshop survey: Pittsburgh 2016

Selected comments from attendees

• "Excellent overall"

• "Very clear instructions, well paced"

• "Very clear, few presentations make a good link between mathematics and the clinical point of view"

• "I found very useful the combination between theory behind the tool and tutorial on how to use it"

Survey results

Number of participants during the first day: 18
Number of participants during the second day: 10
Number of returned documents: 9 (90%)
Link to the pdf document.

Summary

1. Before today's class, how would you describe your use of Brainstorm:

   • Never used: 89%

   • Some simulation work: 0%
   • Some experimental work: 11%
   • Experienced user: 0%
2. How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(worst) to 5(best)
   • 1: 0%
   • 2: 0%
   • 3: 0%

   • 4: 44%

   • 5: 56%

3. Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
   • Yes: 56%
   • No: 44%
4. Interested in using Brainstorm for:
   • EEG: 89%
   • MEG: 22%
   • MEG+EEG: 11%
   • NIRS: 11%
   • sEEG/ECoG: 11%
   • Scripting: 11%
   • Pre-processing: 44%
   • Visualization of recordings: 33%
   • Source analysis: 11%
   • Time-frequency: 33%
   • Functional connectivity: 33%
   • Statistics: 67%
   • Research: 89%
   • Clinical applications: 22%
   • Epilepsy: 11%
   • Baby / infant studies: 0%
   • Animal studies: 0%

Comments and suggestions

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

Comments about the workshop

• Good clarity: 6

• Good pace: 3
• Too fast for beginners: 2
• Lack of structure / paper tutorial needs improvements: 1

Missing topics and requests

• Group analysis: 2
• More on scripting: 1
• More on statistics: 1
• Explanations on FFT stationnarity assumptions and alternatives: 1

Missing tools in Brainstorm

• Other wavelets than Morlet: 1
• Better handleing of long files: 1
• Running personal scripts with compiled version: 1