<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px">Dear fieldtripers,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:12.8px">I recently read a hipp's 2015 paper <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">which asserts that do not modify leadfields after ICA artifact rejection since it could decrease the estimated source SNR.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121048" target="_blank">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121048</a></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">But by seeing ft_rejectcomponent, fieldtrip recommends modifying leadfields after ICA.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Is there a specific reason to do this?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">thanks in advance</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Sanghyun.</div></div></div><div hspace="streak-pt-mark" style="max-height:1px"><img style="width:0px;max-height:0px;overflow:hidden" src="https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=ac2FudGFncmF2aXR5QGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3D%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=8d602c05-59e3-43c4-876d-df591e738182"><font color="#ffffff" size="1">ᐧ</font></div>