box with connection dots and lines that says openneuro next to it

OpenNeuro

menu bar
×

OpenNeuro Support

Please email issues or questions to
support@openneuro.freshdesk.com
or use the form below.

×

Upload Dataset

Step 1: Select Files
Step 2: Validation
Step 3: Metadata
Step 4: Accept Terms

MRI
The Midnight Scan Club (MSC) dataset

BIDS Validation

1 Error Invalid
FilesDownloadMetadata

README

This dataset contains the Midnight Scanning Club (MSC) data, a dataset focused on the precise characterization of ten individual subjects via collection of large amounts of per-individual data. Each subject underwent twelve separate two-hour scanning sessions. In the first two sessions we collected four T1 images, four T2 images, four MR angiograms, and eight MR venograms. In the last ten sessions we collected five hours of resting-state fMRI data and over five and a half hours of task fMRI data across three different tasks. Participants also underwent extensive neuropsychological testing. These raw data are all provided here.

In addition to the raw data, we also provide several derivatives processed using both a volumetric (Talaraich-space) and a surface-based (fs_LR_32k space) pipeline. Volumetric derivatives include cross-session-average T1 and T2 images linearly registered to atlas (Talaraich) space; as well as resting-state data from each scanning session that has been fully preprocessed, motion-censored, and confound-regressed. Surface pipeline derivatives include cortical surfaces which were segmented from the T1 scans using freesurfer, hand-edited, and registered to fs_LR atlas space; resting-state data from each scanning session that has been fully preprocessed, motion-censored, and confound-regressed in CIFTI format (cortical: fs_LR32k; subcortical: Talaraich); cortical parcellations estimated from the resting-state data; vertex-wise whole-brain networks estimated from the resting-state data; task timecourses in CIFTI (cortical: fs_LR32k; subcortical: Talaraich) space; a selection of task contrast images in CIFTI (cortical: fs_LR32k; subcortical: Talaraich) space; myelin maps estimated from the T1- and T2-weighted anatomical scans; and matrices describing the physical geodesic/euclidean distances between every two points in the cifti image.

Details of this dataset are more fully described in Gordon EM, Laumann TO, Gilmore AW, Newbold DJ, Greene DJ, Berg JJ, Ortega M, Hoyt-Drazen C, Gratton C, Sun H, et al. (2017). Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains. Neuron 95, 791–807. This manuscript should be cited when publishing work using this data.

The Midnight Scan Club (MSC) dataset
2189 25.19GB
The Midnight Scan Club (MSC) dataset
  •   .bidsignore
  •   acq-coronal_veno.json
  •   acq-sagittal_veno.json
  •   angio.json
  •   bold_group.html
  •   CHANGES
  •   dataset_description.json
  •   magnitude1.json
  •   magnitude2.json
  •   participants.json
  •   participants.tsv
  •   phasediff.json
  •   README
  •   T1w_group.html
  •   T1w.json
  •   T2w_group.html
  •   T2w.json
  •   task-glasslexical_bold.json
  •   task-memoryfaces_bold.json
  •   task-memoryscenes_bold.json
  •   task-memorywords_bold.json
  •   task-motor_bold.json
  •   task-rest_bold.json
  • derivatives
  • phenotype
  • sourcedata
  • sub-MSC01
  • sub-MSC02
  • sub-MSC03
  • sub-MSC04
  • sub-MSC05
  • sub-MSC06
  • sub-MSC07
  • sub-MSC08
  • sub-MSC09
  • sub-MSC10

Comments

Please sign in to contribute to the discussion.
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By boukhdhiramaal@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
I want to run fmriprep preprocessing on this dataset, however, I am getting an error since I need admin access. I did the same analyses 2 weeks ago without getting this error so do anyone know how can I do my analyses please ?

By krzysztof.gorgolewski@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Analysis capabilities have been temporarily restricted while we work on more cost efficient solution. I recommend downloading the dataset and running FMRIPREP on a local workstation or on a High Performance system provided by your institution.
By mandy.mejia@gmail.com - almost 4 years ago
Hi, I am trying to download the dataset, but I'm running into some problems. First, doing the download through Chrome seems to always fail around 40G. I've tried it on multiple computers, including a high-performance cluster computer, with the same result. I have also tried downloading through AWS CLI, but the speed is very slow.

I decided to try just downloading the files I need individually, namely the surface-processed motor task timeseries, event onset times, and motion parameters. I was able to access the timeseries data for most subjects and sessions, but I found that many of the motor task events.tsv files seem to be missing. For subject MSC01, most are available, for subject MSC02 only one run per session is available, and for all other subjects they are mostly missing. Do you know if these are available and could possibly be re-uploaded?

Thanks!
By krzysztof.gorgolewski@gmail.com - almost 4 years ago
It's likely that the files are not displayed on the website, but are still present on AWS S3 (see this bug report: https://github.com/OpenNeuroOrg/openneuro/issues/923).

Please mind that AWS CLI allows you to selectively download only some files (which can help if your Internet connection is not fast). Have a look at the --exclude and --include options at https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/s3/
By andraz.mat@gmail.com - almost 3 years ago
Hi, I want to use preprocessed data from the derivates folder. For resting state there are masks (derivatives/sub-MSC##/processed_restingstate_timecourses/ses-func##/cifti/*_mask.txt) that were used for removing bad frames. However for task_timecourses there are no such masks. Are they available anywhere? According Gratton et al. (2018) frames were censored both for task and resting state data. Are the data in derivatives fully preprocessed (including filtering, motion censoring, nuisance regression)? Would it be possible to get residuals from GLM models, which were used to compute task functional connectivity in Gratton et al. (2018)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By michael.hutel@outlook.com - over 3 years ago
I have a quick question re. the incidental memory task. Why is it referred to as a memory task? Is it not a pure decision task as subjects instantly react to what is presented. I am afraid that I may missed something in the task description. Could somebody please clarify? Thanks
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By andraz.mat@gmail.com - almost 3 years ago
Hi, I want to use preprocessed data from the derivates folder. For resting state there are masks (derivatives/sub-MSC##/processed_restingstate_timecourses/ses-func##/cifti/*_mask.txt) that were used for removing bad frames. However for task_timecourses there are no such masks. Are they available anywhere? According Gratton et al. (2018) frames were censored both for task and resting state data. Are the data in derivatives fully preprocessed (including filtering, motion censoring, nuisance regression)? Would it be possible to get residuals from GLM models, which were used to compute task functional connectivity in Gratton et al. (2018)?
By andraz.mat@gmail.com - almost 3 years ago
Hi, I want to use preprocessed data from the derivates folder. For resting state there are masks (derivatives/sub-MSC##/processed_restingstate_timecourses/ses-func##/cifti/*_mask.txt) that were used for removing bad frames. However for task_timecourses there are no such masks. Are they available anywhere? According Gratton et al. (2018) frames were censored both for task and resting state data. Are the data in derivatives fully preprocessed (including filtering, motion censoring, nuisance regression)? Would it be possible to get residuals from GLM models, which were used to compute task functional connectivity in Gratton et al. (2018)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Hi! I have questions regarding the tasks. First of all, what are glasslexical tasks, and even though here it lists that there are 6 tasks, the article under "Reference and Links" only list 3 tasks: motor, incidental memory, and mixed block/event-related tasks. Therefore, I am wondering how many tasks are there exactly in this project? Thanks.
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Thanks for your question! The tasks included here are:

Motor task (same the HCP task, with R/L hand movement, R/L foot movement, and Tongue movement conditions)

An incidental memory task where subjects were instructed to make male/female judgments about faces; indoor/outdoor judgments about scenes; and abstract/concrete judgments about words. Stimuli were repeated three times each.

A "mixed" task that was one task session but actually two separate tasks conducted in multiple separate intermixed blocks. The first task was a spatial coherence discrimination task in which subjects viewed concentric dot patterns ("Glass" patterns) and judged whether the dots were moving coherently or not. The second task was a verbal discrimination task in which subjects judged whether words were nouns or verbs.

For a more complete description, please see the Methods section of Gordon et al. (2017). Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains. Neuron 95, 791–807.
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Hi!

Thank you for answering my question! Since there are only 3 tasks, why does it list 6 tasks on this website at the top: "Available Tasks : memoryscenes, memorywords, rest, motor, glasslexical, memoryfaces".

Also, what is the glasslexical task? How is it related to the 3 types of tasks listed in the the Methods section of Gordon et al. (2017). Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains article?

Thank you!
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
The tasks listed at the top reflect the different discrete scanning runs. Within the incidental memory task, the Faces (male/female), Scenes (indoor/outdoor), and Words (abstract/concrete) conditions were conducted in different scanning runs and are saved in different files, even though they are part of the same overarching task. By contrast, the two conditions in the "mixed" design, also known as the Glass pattern / lexical decision task, were conducted in alternating blocks within the same task run.
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Thank you for answering my question! I have a couple of other questions regarding the tasks:
1. I am not sure about the order of the events in the motor design task. My thought is that the order for one task run goes like this: Resting fixation (1 block) -> Movement type 1 (1 block) -> Resting fixation (1 block) -> Movement type 1 (1 block) -> Resting fixation (1 block), for a total of 2 blocks of movement per run and 3 blocks of resting per task run?
2. For motor design task: not sure whether the 3 resting fixation blocks total to 15.4 s or that each resting block is 15.4 s
3. For the Mixed block/event-related task, I am not sure whether it is each block consists of 30 trials or there are a total of 30 trials for all the blocks in the task.

Thank you in advance!
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
1) This varies from scan to scan. Please refer to the events.tsv file for each scan. Note that the resting blocks are not explicitly coded here, but you can infer their existence from the onset and durations of the other conditions (wherever there is a "gap").
2) Each resting block is 15.4s
3) There are 30 trials per block
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Thanks for answering my question! I have another question regarding the motor task. In the article it says, "Each block started with a 2.2 s cue indicating which movement was to be made. After this cue, a centrally-presented caret replaced the instruction and flickered once every 1.1 s (without temporal jittering). Each time the caret flickered, subjects executed the proper movement. 12 movements were made per block. Each task run consisted of 2 blocks of each type of movement as well as 3 blocks of resting fixation, which lasted 15.4 s." -- However, the data file for the motor tasks for all the subjects given on this website do not include the 2.2 s cue, the 1.1 s flickering caret, and there are only 10 movements for all the motor task data files.
Therefore, I am wondering how many tasks were actually conducted and whether an initial cue and flickering carets were part of the task. Thanks!
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Because this was designed as a block task (i.e. with no temporal jitter), it is not appropriate to model individual events within each block. Therefore we have not provided the event times representing the cue and each individual movement, only the block onset times and types. If this is needed, one can easily reconstruct the onset times of each movement from the description provided, which you quoted. However, this is not advised.

The ten times in each event file represent the onset times for the ten motor blocks in that run (two per movement type, as described). As I mentioned in my previous comment, the resting fixation blocks are not explicitly coded, but their onset times can also be easily inferred.
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Thank you for answering my questions! I found another part of the article that I was unsure about: it says, "Last 10 sessions: 5 hours of resting-state fMRI data and over 5.5 hours of task fMRI data for 3 different tasks.", but in another part of the article is says "In each session, 30 contiguous minutes of resting state fMRI data was first collected, in which subjects visually fixated on a white crosshair presented against a black background. ", so why is there inconsistency in the duration of the resting state? Thanks in advance!
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
There is no inconsistency. 10 sessions X 30 minutes per session = 5 hours.
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Yes, I see it now. Thank you! Also, why does it say 14 sessions on this website and 12 in the article?
By evan.gordon@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
For one subject (MSC02), technical issues were encountered during one functional and one structural session that required rebooting the scanning computer. Thus a "second" scanning session was created in each of these days, bringing the total number of sessions for this subject to 14 (though the extra sessions were conducted on the same day and only involved finishing the scans that were not completed in the aborted sessions).
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Thank you for answering my questions! I am also uncertain about the order of events of the Mixed/block/event-related task after looking at its description in the article. My idea is as follows:
1) For spatial coherence task: cue screen -> Concentric dot patterns stimulus 1 -> inter-stimulus interval-> Concentric dot pattern stimulus 2 .... this order of events repeated for the remaining 28 trials (1 pattern/stimulus per trial?) -> Stop cue -> Resting -> Cue screen -> New task block

2) For verbal discrimination task: Cue screen -> Word stimulus 1 -> inter-stimulus interval -> Word stimulus 2... this order of events repeated for the remaining 28 trials -> Stop cue -> Resting -> Cue screen -> New task block

Also, you mentioned above that it will be alternating, what would that look like? I am quite confused here. Thanks in advance!
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Thanks for answering my question! I have another question regarding the motor task. In the article it says, "Each block started with a 2.2 s cue indicating which movement was to be made. After this cue, a centrally-presented caret replaced the instruction and flickered once every 1.1 s (without temporal jittering). Each time the caret flickered, subjects executed the proper movement. 12 movements were made per block. Each task run consisted of 2 blocks of each type of movement as well as 3 blocks of resting fixation, which lasted 15.4 s." -- However, the data file for the motor tasks for all the subjects given on this website do not include the 2.2 s cue, the 1.1 s flickering caret, and there are only 10 movements for all the motor task data files.
Therefore, I am wondering how many tasks were actually conducted and whether an initial cue and flickering carets were part of the task. Thanks!
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - about 4 years ago
Hello, thank you for answering my previous questions. I have another one: when there is an onset, which one is occurring: a stimulus presentation, or are subjects pressing a button? Also, for each task, how long is the resting state compared to the duration of the subjects completing the task? For example, for the memory faces task, how long did subjects spend completing the memory faces task and how long did they spend in the resting state? Thanks in advance!

By andraz.mat@gmail.com - almost 3 years ago
Hi, I want to use preprocessed data from the derivates folder. For resting state there are masks (derivatives/sub-MSC##/processed_restingstate_timecourses/ses-func##/cifti/*_mask.txt) that were used for removing bad frames. However for task_timecourses there are no such masks. Are they available anywhere? According Gratton et al. (2018) frames were censored both for task and resting state data. Are the data in derivatives fully preprocessed (including filtering, motion censoring, nuisance regression)? Would it be possible to get residuals from GLM models, which were used to compute task functional connectivity in Gratton et al. (2018)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By h.hsiao1204@gmail.com - over 2 years ago
Hello, I have a question about the Incidental Memory task: In your paper, it says that "In each task run, subjects viewed 24 stimuli, 3 times each". My question is: Was each of the stimulus being presented 3 times in total over the task run but the 3 times occurred in a random manner and at random times over the task run (but just add up to 3 times)? Or was the same stimulus presented 3 times in a row before the next stimulus was presented (so the stimuli were presented as blocks after blocks, with each block as 3 identical stimulus)?
By alice.bizeul@epfl.ch - about 2 years ago
Hi, I am using ds000224 provided via DataLad. I want to report typos in several JSON files in the dataset (https://github.com/OpenNeuroDatasets/ds000224/blob/master/sourcedata/phenotype/). This generates error messages when trying to run processing pipelines like fmriprep on the dataset.
Thanks !
By alice.bizeul@epfl.ch - about 2 years ago
Hi, I am using ds000224 provided via DataLad. I want to report typos in several JSON files in the dataset (https://github.com/OpenNeuroDatasets/ds000224/blob/master/sourcedata/phenotype/). This generates error messages when trying to run processing pipelines like fmriprep on the dataset.
Thanks !
By alice.bizeul@epfl.ch - about 2 years ago
Hi, I am using ds000224 provided via DataLad. I want to report typos in several JSON files in the dataset (https://github.com/OpenNeuroDatasets/ds000224/blob/master/sourcedata/phenotype/). This generates error messages when trying to run processing pipelines like fmriprep on the dataset.
Thanks !
By maplotr1@gmail.com - about 2 years ago
Dear Experts,

I am currently working with the MSC task data and was extracting event timing from *.tsv memoryscene from sub-MSC02 when I noticed that in ses-func11 the run1 and run2 *.tsv files contain the wrong task labels under "TRIAL_TYPE". Instead of the Indoor and Outdoor names under column "TRIAL_TYPE" it says Abstract* and Concrete* which I thought was only used for the memorywords *.tsv files. This issue is present in every version of the MSC dataset published here for preview (as well as the set I downloaded).

Is this simply an error in labeling of the *.tsv files only with everything else correct? Or, is this a duplicate of some other session run? Are these actually memorywords task runs and this subject is just missing 2 of the usual 10 sessions for each task type in the dataset? Or some other issue with these related runs?

Best
By maplotr1@gmail.com - about 2 years ago
Dear Experts,

I am currently working with the MSC task data and was extracting event timing from *.tsv memoryscene from sub-MSC02 when I noticed that in ses-func11 the run1 and run2 *.tsv files contain the wrong task labels under "TRIAL_TYPE". Instead of the Indoor and Outdoor names under column "TRIAL_TYPE" it says Abstract* and Concrete* which I thought was only used for the memorywords *.tsv files. This issue is present in every version of the MSC dataset published here for preview (as well as the set I downloaded).

Is this simply an error in labeling of the *.tsv files only with everything else correct? Or, is this a duplicate of some other session run? Are these actually memorywords task runs and this subject is just missing 2 of the usual 10 sessions for each task type in the dataset? Or some other issue with these related runs?

Best
By maplotr1@gmail.com - about 2 years ago
Dear Experts,

I am currently working with the MSC task data and was extracting event timing from *.tsv memoryscene from sub-MSC02 when I noticed that in ses-func11 the run1 and run2 *.tsv files contain the wrong task labels under "TRIAL_TYPE". Instead of the Indoor and Outdoor names under column "TRIAL_TYPE" it says Abstract* and Concrete* which I thought was only used for the memorywords *.tsv files. This issue is present in every version of the MSC dataset published here for preview (as well as the set I downloaded).

Is this simply an error in labeling of the *.tsv files only with everything else correct? Or, is this a duplicate of some other session run? Are these actually memorywords task runs and this subject is just missing 2 of the usual 10 sessions for each task type in the dataset? Or some other issue with these related runs?

Best
By rmatsuoka@mis.doshisha.ac.jp - 12 months ago
Hello, I have a question about the contents of this dataset. On the dataset file tree, some task data don't exist. (MSC02/session03/glasslexical-run01 and run02, MSC10/session06/glasslexical tasks and motor tasks, etc). I want to know why these data are not shown on the tree.

Are they originally missing or exsiting but just hidden from file tree due to some bugs?

I thought there should be same number of task files, so I tried to download via datalad and aws s3. But I could only get the data as the dataset file tree shows (missing some of MSC02, MSC10's datasets). I would appreciate for any responses.

OpenNeuro Accession Number

ds000224

Authors

  • Evan M. Gordon
  • Timothy O. Laumann
  • Adrian W. Gilmore
  • Dillan J. Newbold
  • Deanna J. Greene
  • Jeffrey J. Berg
  • Mario Ortega
  • Catherine Hoyt-Drazen
  • Caterina Gratton
  • Haoxin Sun
  • Jacqueline M. Hampton
  • Rebecca S. Coalson
  • Annie Nguyen
  • Kathleen B. McDermott
  • Joshua S. Shimony
  • Abraham Z. Snyder
  • Bradley L. Schlaggar
  • Steven E. Petersen
  • Steven M. Nelson
  • Nico U.F. Dosenbach

Available Modalities

MRI

Versions

Draft
Updated: 2020-07-15
Versions

Tasks

glasslexical, memoryfaces, memoryscenes, memorywords, motor, rest

Uploaded by

William James on 2017-09-20 - almost 5 years ago

Last Updated

2020-07-15 - about 2 years ago

Sessions

13

Participants

10

Dataset DOI

doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds000224.v1.0.3

License

CC0

Acknowledgements

N/A

How to Acknowledge

When using this data, please cite Gordon et al., Precision Functional Mapping of Individual Human Brains, 2017 and include the following: 'This data was obtained from the OpenNeuro database. Its accession number is ds000224'

Funding

  • This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants NS088590, TR000448 (NUFD), MH104592 (DJG), and HD087011 (to the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center at Washington University); the Jacobs Foundation (NUFD); the Child Neurology Foundation (NUFD); the McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience (NUFD, BLS); the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (NUFD); the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders (NUFD, BLS, SEP); and Dart Neuroscience LLC.

References and Links

Ethics Approvals

  • N/A
×