You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #48, we switched from z-scores to effect sizes in the first-level outputs. These are more useful at the second level, but not great for visualizing.
In nilearn/nistats#183, we added the ability to easily get all output types ('z_score', 'stat', 'p_value', 'effect_size', 'effect_variance'), so which of these are the most useful? Do people have opinions?
See #125 for semi-related thoughts about naming schemes.
Is there any reason we shouldn't output everything by default? Other than disk space, what's the downside? I think most users are probably going to want to have the flexibility to peruse a comprehensive set of results (I certainly would).
In #48, we switched from z-scores to effect sizes in the first-level outputs. These are more useful at the second level, but not great for visualizing.
In nilearn/nistats#183, we added the ability to easily get all output types ('z_score', 'stat', 'p_value', 'effect_size', 'effect_variance'), so which of these are the most useful? Do people have opinions?
cc @satra @mgxd
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: