# depth weighting **URL:** \ **Category:** Mailing List Archive (read-only)\ **Tags:** list-archive\ **Created:** [June 13, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://mne.discourse.group/t/depth-weighting/318 "2011-06-13T13:46:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/mne/original/1X/85cc6bd2b69cb698a166dc6d880fb550510d0144.jpeg) [@system](https://mne.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 1:46pm UTC](https://mne.discourse.group/t/depth-weighting/318/1 "2011-06-13T13:46:00Z")
Hi MNE users, Just a quick question regarding depth weighting. So far I have only applied the default settings (weightexp = 0.8 and weightlimit = 10) but I would like to experiment a bit with these parameters. I tried to run 'mne\_inverse\_operator' identically to 'mne\_do\_inverse\_operator' from the command line but it always gives me the usage options (i.e. those that would be returned with the --help option) irrespective of what command line options I specify. What am I missing? I am using version 2.6.1. Also, any comments on why the defaults were chosen as 0.8 and 10 would be helpful. Thanks and best regards, Pavan Ramkumar Brain Research Unit MEG Core Low Temperature Laboratory Aalto University School of Science Espoo, Finland ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/mne/original/1X/85cc6bd2b69cb698a166dc6d880fb550510d0144.jpeg) [@system](https://mne.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 2:16pm UTC](https://mne.discourse.group/t/depth-weighting/318/2 "2011-06-13T14:16:55Z")
Hi Pavan,    Not sure why mne\_inverse\_operator is scooting out in your case..In general, it has fewer defaults than mne\_do\_inverse\_operator and requires you to specify a larger set of options for it to run at all.   As far as the default parameters go: "Our results show that using p = 0.7?0.8 in general yields most accurate localization accuracy, as quantified by our shift metrics" is a sentence from [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520063](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520063) The limit of 10 just prevents the deep sources from being blown up too much. Regards, Hari ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/mne/original/1X/85cc6bd2b69cb698a166dc6d880fb550510d0144.jpeg) [@system](https://mne.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://mne.discourse.group/t/depth-weighting/318/3 "2011-06-13T14:25:22Z")
Hi Pavan, If you want to try using mne\_inverse\_operator, your best bet is to read the script for mne\_do\_inverse\_operator and feed it all of the details, which it normally would. That script adds details to the call of mne\_inverse\_operator, which are required inputs. Good Luck! D ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/mne/original/1X/85cc6bd2b69cb698a166dc6d880fb550510d0144.jpeg) [@system](https://mne.discourse.group/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://mne.discourse.group/t/depth-weighting/318/4 "2011-06-13T19:56:48Z")
Thanks a lot Dan and Hari! I did try looking into the script of mne\_do\_inverse\_operator but I haven't managed to figure it out yet. I'm not sure what command line args to specify for input parameters I don't use such as $eeg and $fixed I read through Lin et al. 2006 and it appears from their discussion that MNE without dSPM is better for deep sources. This was useful. I'm currently playing with simulated sources in odd places like medial prefrontal cx and cingulate cx; but a depth weighting exponent of 0.8 estimates the cingulate source in the posterior STG/auditory cx, even for a surface decimation of ~3-mm separation (ico-5). I wonder whether increasing the exponent would help in this regard. Thanks for any advice. Best regards, Pavan