MRI
ParanoiaStory

BIDS Validation

1 Error Invalid
FilesDownloadMetadata

README

This dataset contains raw fMRI data for 22 healthy participants listening to an original audio narrative designed to elicit individual variation along an axis of suspicion/paranoia. For more details, please see the following publication:

Finn ES, Corlett PR, Chen G, Bandettini PA, Constable RT. (2018) "Trait paranoia shapes inter-subject synchrony in brain activity during an ambiguous social narrative." Nature Communications, 9: 2043. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04387-2

ParanoiaStory
103 23.53GB
ParanoiaStory
  •   .bidsignore
  •   CHANGES
  •   dataset_description.json
  •   participants.tsv
  •   README
  •   task-story1_bold.json
  •   task-story1_events.tsv
  •   task-story2_bold.json
  •   task-story2_events.tsv
  •   task-story3_bold.json
  •   task-story3_events.tsv
  • other_files
  • stimuli
  • sub-tb2994
  • sub-tb3132
  • sub-tb3240
  • sub-tb3279
  • sub-tb3512
  • sub-tb3592
  • sub-tb3602
  • sub-tb3626
  • sub-tb3646
  • sub-tb3744
  • sub-tb3757
  • sub-tb3784
  • sub-tb3810
  • sub-tb3846
  • sub-tb3858
  • sub-tb3920
  • sub-tb3929
  • sub-tb3964
  • sub-tb3977
  • sub-tb4450
  • sub-tb4547
  • sub-tb4572

Comments

Please sign in to contribute to the discussion.
By aleph4@gmail.com - over 3 years ago
Hey Emily. Great upload! I do have a minor comment however. If I'm correct, it seems that there is a single story that is split up into three runs. I would argue this suggests there is a single task with three runs, rather than three tasks with one run.

This would at least be more consistent with the way other naturalistic datasets are uploaded.
What I'll do is modify this dataset, upload it using datalad, and if you wish you may merge my changes.

Thanks again!
By krzysztof.gorgolewski@gmail.com - over 3 years ago
This issue of interpretation of the standard is being discussed at https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/146
By manpakravan@gmail.com - almost 4 years ago
Hi,
I am analyzing this valuable dataset, I need to know the trait paranoia score (or GPTS-A score) of each subject. I downloaded the database, but, I could not find any file specifying the GPTS-A score of subjects. It would be appreciated if you guide me in this regards.
By esfinn@gmail.com - almost 4 years ago
Hello, thanks for your interest. There is now a participants.tsv file with the age, sex, and GPTS-A score for all subjects.
By krzysztof.gorgolewski@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Fantastic contribution! Thank you so much!

I noticed a couple of issues with the metadata, that might be worth correcting to make the dataset more BIDS compliant and easier to reuse
1) "/stimulus" folder should be renamed to "/stimuli" and removed from .bidsignore file
2) _events.tsv files seem to be missing in your case it's my best guess that they should only include onsets to stimuli files for example ("stim_file" column is a path relative to "/stimuli")

onset duration stim_file
1.2 49.6 story1_audio.wav
You can find more details in section 8.5 of http://bids.neuroimaging.io/bids_spec1.1.0.pdf

Thanks again for sharing this data!
By esfinn@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Hi Chris, belated thanks for the above suggestions. They have now been implemented.
By krzysztof.gorgolewski@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Super cool! Thanks! I think you might've forgotten to publish your updated snapshot.

PS Awesome climbing profile pic!
By esfinn@gmail.com - over 4 years ago
Ha, thanks (on both counts)! Should be published now.
By zhaiyupsy@gmail.com - almost 4 years ago
This is a elegant and fantastic study. I love it! I only have some small questions.
1. I notice that there are the analyses about how high- (low-) paranoia individuals processed mentalizing sentences or non-mentalizing sentences, but without the analyses about whether there are differences between mentalizing sentences and non-mentalizing sentences that processed by high- (low-) paranoia individuals.
2.I would definitely appreciate that if you can provide: the specific psychological and cognitive assessments that mentioned in visit 1, and the specific results of individuals' post-narrative questionaires, free-recall and multiple-choice comprehension.

Thanks again for sharing this data!