- All the more reason to use VASO.
- Vascular draining confounds laminar decoding in fMRI biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/202…
- It's not that easy - due to extremely low SNR in VASO, so far we were not able to decode even very simple task contrasts with VASO. In addition, we can't replicate important VASO findings. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
- It's not so easy. It depends, if reduced sensitivity is coming from removing fasle-positive vein signals. VASOs sensitivity to micro vessels is not bad and often used for MVPA Wasn't the replication issue in that study discussed wrt segmentation issues. If at all, VASO's T1 contrast helps with that
- I haven't seen that many papers yet using MVPA in VASO. With respect to our replication study, main thing is the ROI selection I would say and not segmentation issues as we did a lot of control analyses including manual segmentation.
- Thanks. I am glad we agree that the replication discussion was not about VASO then. Kenshu Koiso (movies + newly faces/places), Insub Kim (orientation), Daniel Haenelt (ODC) compared MVPA across contrasts. Their results agree with you on vein effects in MVPA BOLD. No 🌌 left, DM 4 🔗.
- Compared to laminar MVPA in GE-BOLD, these are not many studies :) I know your work (RSA in Kenshu paper), Polina's preprint + Daniel's preprint (where it becomes evident that decoding with VASO is hard and in his case looks similar to GE-BOLD on the group level). Is Insub Kim's work published yet?
- Replicability isn’t just a VASO issue — it’s a challenge across the (laminar) fMRI field. However, I argue that low SNR makes VASO especially hard: tricky to detect signal and even harder to replicate. I’m not pushing GE-BOLD for laminar fMRI, but “just use VASO” oversimplifies the current problems.
