<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi,</div><div><br><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks for you suggestion Tzvetan!</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I was trying to avoid data-padding since both prior and after my period of interest the participant receives sensory stimuli, so the brain signal in the periods preceding and following my period of interest is radically different. </div></div></blockquote>Well it depends on the sliding window length at the end I guess. If it’s not feasible -sure.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">For this reason I thought that it is better to use either mirror- or zero- padding instead. Would you agree?</div></div></blockquote>I would try both and see how they affect the dependent metric. Your ultimate goal I suspect is to reject H0. If this is equally possible with either strategy- fine. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">I still don't know which one though, hence my previous 'mirror VS zero padding' question.</div></div></blockquote>Seems that you don’t have much of a baseline to begin with. Would frequency analysis also be an option?</div><div>best</div><div>tzvetan</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Maris</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>fieldtrip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br>http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</blockquote></div><br></body></html>