Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jan 15.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2013 Apr 29;85(0 1):10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.082. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.082

Fig.6.

Fig.6

a) and b) Scatter plots of the AUC0-2 metric computed with the rejection technique (y axis) vs. that computed with no motion correction technique (x axis) for both HbO (a) and HbR (b). Trial rejection decreases AUC0-2 36% of the time for HbO and 37% for HbR, but increases it in almost the same percentage of cases. 28% of the times the AUC0-2 value is identical for both techniques. c) and d) Scatter plots of the within-subject SD metric computed with the rejection technique (y axis) vs. that computed with no motion correction technique (x axis) for both HbO (c) and HbR (d). Trial rejection decreases the standard deviation 54% of the time for HbO and 51% for HbR compared to no motion correction.