Dear Francois,
thanks a lot.
I am attaching the requested images, but of course the lead field vectors are not shown properly, although I tried much, sorry for that.
I had seen the warnings with the mixed model, but there are two observations based on which I have still preferred using it:
1- when projecting single subject results to the common space, the brainstorm shows a high overlap and nice match between the final projected subcortical structure and the assoicated one in the standard brain for most of the subjects.
2- It seems that I get almost good results in the group level analysis since they are consistent with results of fmri (taken simultaneously).
Is there other serious theoretical or technical problems with this "mixed" method that I shall revise using it?
Best regards,
EEG_3D_subj_stims_final_Avg_20_files_MN_EEG_Constr_2018.tif (439.8 KB)
EEG_3D_subj_stims_final_Avg_20_files_MN_EEG_Mixed_2018.tif (426.3 KB)
Leadfield__users_EEG_brainstorm_db_Porotocol01_data_subj_@default_study_headmodel_surf_openmeeg.mat.tif (186.4 KB)
Leadfield_users_EEG_brainstorm_db_Porotocol01_data_subj_@default_study_headmodel_mix_openmeeg.mat.tif (220.4 KB)
