[FieldTrip] gamma oscillations, how to prove they are (not) there

[Simon-Shlomo Poil]

Hi Ben,

Eyeballing data is a good start. But sometimes your eyes see something
which is not really there (i.e. significant), or they might miss something
(such as gamma).

 I think these tutorials would be relevant for you to read:

http://www.nbtwiki.net/doku.php?id=tutorial:amplitude_in_classical_frequency_bands#.UmD1liQmyIA
http://www.nbtwiki.net/doku.php?id=tutorial:power_spectra_wavelet_analysis_and_coherence#.UmD1NiQmyIA
http://www.nbtwiki.net/doku.php?id=tutorial:compute_statistics#.UmD2NSQmyIA

Good luck
Simon


--
Simon-Shlomo Poil, Dr.



2013/10/17 van Lier Ben <ben.vanlier at bsse.ethz.ch>

> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to show an increase in gamma oscillations. According to
> literature they should be there without a doubt. But, I am not too sure
> about the actual recording - i have the feeling i was just recording noise.
>
> When i eyeball raw traces, i do not see a difference between condition 1
> and 2. Same for the PSD and spectrograms, just the 1/f noise.
>
> My question is, could there still be (eg low amplitude) oscillation in the
> data that you just wont see by eye? what is your experience in this?
>
> Using freqstatistics, some channels do show significance but im a bit
> skeptical. I have been playing around with freqstatistics and simulated
> data from freqsimulation and the stats only made sense when i could clearly
> see it by eye in the spectrogram as well...
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20131018/c5ae44eb/attachment.html>