jarrodmillman
commented
8 years ago I was looking over your commit log and it appears that two members of the team are not contributing.
Please review the grading criteria: http://www.jarrodmillman.com/rcsds/notes/rubric.pdf
As well as my comments from lecture 22: http://www.jarrodmillman.com/rcsds/lectures/day22.html
Seemed to have a reasonable overall goal of limiting your comparison analysis to two subjects to avoid the data problem.
Mentioned reducing their input space by focusing on ROI's, but didn't explicitly mention where those ROI's will come from: are they from the paper or will they be determined by some sort of analysis? Either way, focusing on specific regions of the brain is a good idea, as long as those regions are determined in a sensible way.
I recommend that each member of the group individually re-read the paper then they all get together and discuss it; it seemed like not everyone was on the same page in terms of what their data represented and what they were planning on doing.
Be careful about the data. If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't use it. Carefully re-read the paper, take a look at the data, and come to office hours with questions.
In figure 2, I think you mean BOLD (blood oxygen level dependent) response instead of blood pressure. I was confused why you were considering estimating the covariance of the parameter estimates.
Be careful to keep files that expect where they belong. For example, you've removed the Makefile from the code directory.
You still have a lot of work to do, but there is still time.