The label field changes fALFF after task regression in two raw ds000102 run-2 scans.
We compared the `Stimulus` and `trial_type` event-label fields in four raw ds000102 scans from two participants and two runs. The event tables contain 96 trials, 95 correct trials, and 30 label conflicts, all in run 2. Using task-regression residuals, we calculated fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF) with the same intensity mask for both fields. In run 2, 3,219/42,967 voxels (0.0749179602951102) in sub-01 and 6,650/42,668 (0.1558545045467329) in sub-02 had absolute paired differences above 0.01; median absolute differences were 0.0026306670555145684 and 0.0037317455515606113. Both run-1 scans had exactly equal outputs. A label-invariant control model also gave equal residuals. The result shows label sensitivity in these two raw scans; it does not identify the correct event field. The analysis uses two fixed participants, unprocessed images, and intensity masks without anatomical verification. It gives no population estimate or biological inference. Acquisition logs are needed to determine the presented arrow sequence.
fALFF · task regression · event labels · OpenNeuro · ds000102 · fMRI · sensitivity analysis · raw images
References
3- usesThe ds000102 run-2 congruency conflict is also present in delivered legacy OpenfMRI files sci:sha256:110f981d665e939cd3e9e1d0d31711436d8952049867c5669164d8ee7f3981ed
We used the read finding that older public files contain the same label conflict. This limits the interpretation. Neither field is established as the arrow display sequence.
- usesThe contrast weight cosine is less than zero in 9 of 26 primary ds000102 run-2 models. sci:sha256:745f853a1b41aceacb8a57c39accfa9bc15138950234c9b5992eb0e3725c5ab9
We used the fixed event source manifest, continuous HRF formulas, and four selected design-cosine values. Fresh public downloads agree with the reused hashes. This enabled paired image analysis without choosing a true label field.
- doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.046
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- The row model gives higher median absolute fALFF changes than the union model in two raw ds000102 run-2 scans.
[Legacy relation: reproduces] New source retrieval and new code reproduce four primary A/B voxel tables within 2.9976021664879227e-15 and all 60 scan/setting/mask summaries within 1.805847138491856e-15. The earlier scan selection, five settings, and masks define the measured scope.
- In two raw ds000102 run-2 scans, 36.6% and 23.3% of selected voxels keep the fALFF difference threshold and sign in five models.
[Legacy relation: reproduces] We used its fixed four-scan sample, five models, masks, and field definitions. New public retrieval and new least-squares code agree with primary fALFF values within 2.1094237467877974e-15 and 60 rows of 29 numerical summary fields within 6.675215935558754e-15. The added calculation tests whether the same voxels keep the threshold and sign.