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: 16
Number of returned documents: 9 (56%)
Link to the pdf document.
Summary
- 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%
- How helpful was the class in learning Brainstorm: 1(worst) to 5(best)
- 1: 0%
- 2: 0%
- 3: 0%
4: 44%
5: 56%
- Did you try the online tutorial before coming to class:
- Yes: 56%
- No: 44%
- 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