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
<p>Methods Lab is a trainee-run laboratory established for the purpose of providing a space beyond the classroom to exchange ideas, share code, receive feedback, learn modern research methods, and foster a culture of open science in empirical psychology and cognitive neuroscience at Georgetown University.</p>
39
+
<p>Methods Lab is a trainee-run laboratory established for the purpose of providing a space beyond the classroom to exchange ideas, share code, receive feedback, learn modern research methods, and foster a culture of open science in empirical psychology and cognitive neuroscience at Georgetown University and greater Washington DC area.</p>
<p>A few times throughout the academic year, we meet either on a larger-scale (hackathons) or on a smaller-scale (mini-labs) to explore/analysis public neuroimaging datasets and/or improve neuroimaging resources (e.g., tutorial creation, in-house lab scripts, software development). These are typically casual, low-pressure gatherings aimed at improving skills and increasing research productivity. <b>No coding experience required!</b></p>
75
+
<p>A few times throughout the academic year, we meet either on a larger-scale (hackathons) or on a smaller-scale (mini-labs) to explore/analysis public neuroimaging datasets and/or improve neuroimaging resources (e.g., tutorial creation, in-house lab code snippets or scripts, software development). These are typically informal, low-pressure gatherings aimed at improving skills and increasing research productivity. <b>No coding experience required!</b></p>
We meet weekly to discuss relevant papers to learn about neuroimaging methods and/or interesting topics in cognitive neuroscience. Presenters partner up in pairs of two and present on a similar topic (e.g. representational similarity analysis). The first week is usually a foundational paper on the topic and the second usually features more-advanced treatment.
45
45
<br><br>
46
-
Each week, only one of the presenters in the pair takes the lead in actually presenting the paper. The other will serve as a resource. Ideally this plays out with one of the presenters being more experienced in the topic (who can provide more technical advice) and the other more of a newcomer (who can advise on the right level of granularity for other newcomers to the topic).
46
+
Each week, only one of the presenters in the pair takes the lead in actually presenting the paper. The other will serve as a resource. Ideally, this plays out with one of the presenters being more experienced in the topic (who can provide more technical advice) and the other being more of a newcomer (who is interested in learning more and can advise on the right level of granularity for other newcomers to the topic).
47
47
</p>
48
48
49
49
50
50
<h1>Presentations</h1>
51
+
52
+
<h3>July 23, 2020<br><ahref="https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/7/5/604/1695239" target="blank">O’Reilly, J. X., Woolrich, M. W., Behrens, T. E., Smith, S. M., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2012). Tools of the trade: psychophysiological interactions and functional connectivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 604-609.</a>
53
+
<br><br><ahref="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912003497" target="blank">McLaren, D. G., Ries, M. L., Xu, G., & Johnson, S. C. (2012). A generalized form of context-dependent psychophysiological interactions (gPPI): a comparison to standard approaches. NeuroImage, 61(4), 1277-1286.</a>
54
+
<br><br><ahref="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811913004345" target="blank">Fornito, A., Zalesky, A., & Breakspear, M. (2013). Graph analysis of the human connectome: promise, progress, and pitfalls. NeuroImage, 80, 426-444.</a>
55
+
</h3>
56
+
57
+
<p><ahref="" target="blank">[Recording and materials (coming soon!)]</a></p>
58
+
59
+
<h3>July 16, 2020<br><ahref="https://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a2330" target="blank">Anderson, J., Ferguson, M., Lopez-Larson, M., Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2011). Reproducibility of Single-Subject Functional Connectivity Measurements. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 32(3), 548-555.</a>
60
+
<br><br><ahref="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919307487?via%3Dihub" target="blank">Noble, S., Scheinost, D., Constable, R. (2019). A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 203, 116157.</a>
61
+
</h3>
62
+
63
+
<p><ahref="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NtZr35mld_t1n_7cZH36_HVys3IqPZ6V?usp=sharing" target="blank">[Recording and materials]</a></p>
<h3>June 18, 2020<br><ahref="https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-7647-8_3" target="blank">Wagstyl K., Lerch J.P. (2018) Cortical thickness. In: Spalletta G., Piras F., Gili T. (eds) Brain Morphometry. Neuromethods, vol 136. Humana Press, New York, NY.</a></h3>
53
-
<p><ahref="" target="blank">[Recording and materials]</a></p>
92
+
<p><ahref="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JrWcA1iw7AA2Lj_3Otp5pFA8u-QoLPjf?usp=sharing" target="blank">[Recording and materials]</a></p>
54
93
55
94
<h3>June 11, 2020<br><ahref="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912000419?casa_token=xIk1iM33HH4AAAAA:8YP3uRHS14n4cVIYxJX444--gc4r5GCOVLu9xWN5qz0Gsvl_xAAPAjJgkUlR9ODtbpq-BHmFNA" target="blank">Evans, A. C., Janke, A. L., Collins, D. L., & Baillet, S. (2012). Brain templates and atlases. Neuroimage, 62(2), 911-922.</a></h3>
56
-
<p><ahref="" target="blank">[Recording and materials]</a></p>
95
+
<p><ahref="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lCSgq5dMsCKrknNsWvcf4HrqJ-4aCAeD?usp=sharing" target="blank">[Recording and materials]</a></p>
0 commit comments