Comments on: A discussion on LORETA software use and licensing. http://qeegsupport.com/261/ Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG): Information & Discussion Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:22:48 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Brian Milstead http://qeegsupport.com/261/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Brian Milstead Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:02:31 +0000 http://qeegsupport.com/?p=261#comment-37 Ask a question and get an answer related to your post. We have a couple of authors here to answer questions. Ask a question and get an answer related to your post. We have a couple of authors here to answer questions.

]]> By: J. Schaller http://qeegsupport.com/261/comment-page-1/#comment-36 J. Schaller Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:02:18 +0000 http://qeegsupport.com/?p=261#comment-36 Hello I just found this site and the interesting article about loretta. I tried to find out how I can post a question on my own but I did not find the answer. So I reply to this posting. Can anybody tell me how I can ask questions to this forum? Do I have to install WordPress? Is it possible to install it without a website? Thank you for your help. Jörg Hello

I just found this site and the interesting article about loretta.
I tried to find out how I can post a question on my own but I did not find the answer. So I reply to this posting.
Can anybody tell me how I can ask questions to this forum? Do I have to install WordPress? Is it possible to install it without a website?

Thank you for your help.

Jörg

]]> By: hagedorn http://qeegsupport.com/261/comment-page-1/#comment-32 hagedorn Thu, 07 May 2009 14:03:09 +0000 http://qeegsupport.com/?p=261#comment-32 Leslie, I've been to a few other military bases over the last couple of months and there is an increasing interest in my talks about neurotherapy applications for active duty, dependents and vets. I’m finding out that my increasingly well funded and eager colleagues are somewhat naïve about the technology, equipment quality, research support, and their ethical applications. It is for this reason that your clarification on the correct use of LORETA comes at a good time. I think we have a responsibility to police and educate our peers and I want to thank you for your contribution to this end. Regards, Dave Leslie,
I’ve been to a few other military bases over the last couple of months and there is an increasing interest in my talks about neurotherapy applications for active duty, dependents and vets. I’m finding out that my increasingly well funded and eager colleagues are somewhat naïve about the technology, equipment quality, research support, and their ethical applications. It is for this reason that your clarification on the correct use of LORETA comes at a good time. I think we have a responsibility to police and educate our peers and I want to thank you for your contribution to this end.
Regards,
Dave

]]> By: Jay Gunkelman http://qeegsupport.com/261/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Jay Gunkelman Sat, 02 May 2009 17:46:39 +0000 http://qeegsupport.com/?p=261#comment-31 Leslie, When it comes to the use of LORETA, the easiest thing to do is listen to the opinion of the author of the technique regarding how and when it is appropriate to use the technique. When Roberto Pascal-Marqui tells us that an execution of his software violates the underlying mathematical assumptions and invalidates the result, like the use of Z-score LORETA does, then to persist with the use of the invalid technique in the face of the author's dismissal of the approach seems to be motivated by something other than science. I appreciate the approach that doesn't provide all the pre-set band sources, and which can give statistically insignificant sources as well as valid sources. I prefer to identify a significant finding and then find that source alone, which avoids the false positive source identifications. I understand that the execution you and marco provided gave a table which shows the multiple statistical comparison evaluation of significance, though often people close out that window and go straight to the "spurces", regardless their significance (or lack thereof). This is why I like to find a source of a specific finding which is identified, and not a big "batch" of sources... Thanks for the well done clear summary of these sometimes "hard-to-comprehend" issues where people's vested interests so often confound rather than clarify. Leslie,

When it comes to the use of LORETA, the easiest thing to do is listen to the opinion of the author of the technique regarding how and when it is appropriate to use the technique.

When Roberto Pascal-Marqui tells us that an execution of his software violates the underlying mathematical assumptions and invalidates the result, like the use of Z-score LORETA does, then to persist with the use of the invalid technique in the face of the author’s dismissal of the approach seems to be motivated by something other than science.

I appreciate the approach that doesn’t provide all the pre-set band sources, and which can give statistically insignificant sources as well as valid sources. I prefer to identify a significant finding and then find that source alone, which avoids the false positive source identifications.

I understand that the execution you and marco provided gave a table which shows the multiple statistical comparison evaluation of significance, though often people close out that window and go straight to the “spurces”, regardless their significance (or lack thereof). This is why I like to find a source of a specific finding which is identified, and not a big “batch” of sources…

Thanks for the well done clear summary of these sometimes “hard-to-comprehend” issues where people’s vested interests so often confound rather than clarify.

]]>