1. Title Authors/Collaborators Affiliations When was the project discussed in a research group meeting? Which group? Note (see also http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/imaging/ImagersInterestGroup): Project proposals at the IIG serve to 1)allow the IMC to evaluate the suitability and priority of a project within the research programmes at the CBU, and make sure the projects follow guidelines of good research practice. 2)open a project for general discussion, clarify outstanding scientific issues, allow feedback for further improvement of the project. General guidelines: It is required that projects have been discussed in previous group meetings. A brief summary of how the feedback from those group meetings has been addressed should be included in the IIG presentation. The decision about a project (whether or how it should go ahead, and with which priority) will be made at the IMC. An IIG presentation does not guarantee approval of a project, even if no controversial issues were raised at the IIG. The IIG focuses on scientific content. Because the theoretical background should have been discussed in previous group meetings, IIG presentations should put more emphasis on methodological aspects of the study ("as much theory as necessary, as much methods as possible"). The PPT templates above specify the information required for a project proposal. The presentation should take about 10 minutes, with an extra 10 minutes for discussion. Discussions at the IIG should be constructive and supportive, and encourage a wider audience to participate. IMC members should be present at the IIG. Lead researchers of a project should be "on call" during the IMC meeting, in case clarifications about the project are needed. Where a junior scientist (e.g. a student or new post-doc) is presenting, it is expected that one or more of the senior scientists on the project are present at the IIG. If a non-CBU member is presenting a CBU study then it is essential that the CBU sponsor is present at the meeting. The IMC can be notified of general concerns about a project proposal by e-mailing to mri.admin@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk before an IMC meeting.

2.  Which QQR programme does this project relate to, and how?  Have significant issues been raised in the previous group meeting presentation, and if so how were they addressed?  How does this project relate to previous fMRI/EMEG projects run by you, or by others, as part of same QQR programme? Or by others outside the CBU?  What are the main questions/hypotheses addressed by this study?  Is the main purpose replication, a small variation to previous research, exploring a new paradigm, evaluating a new method, etc.?  Examples of previous results that are relevant to present study  Why both MEG and fMRI? Will data be compared or combined? Background (3 slides)

3. Participants (MEG and fMRI): how many - age range - patients or healthy – handedness - special criteria - where recruited – same for MEG and fMRI? Stimuli (MEG and fMRI): what type – grouped into which conditions - how many (per condition) - which matching criteria - new or from previous studies? Procedure (MEG and fMRI): which task(s) - what type of response(s) - randomisation of stimuli/tasks - blocked or event-related design - stimulus duration(s) – SOA(s) - duration of blocks – sequence of MEG and fMRI counterbalanced? General: MEG or MEG+EEG MRIs required? Additional methods (eye-tracking, EMG, behavioural, questionnaires etc.) Have the methods (or part of them) been used before, by yourself or in other studies? Have pre-tests of stimuli or paradigm been performed? Illustration of trial structure Example of instructions to volunteers Highlight relevant differences between MEG and fMRI procedure/design/stimuli Methods (4 slides)

4. General analysis strategy and how it relates to the above-mentioned hypotheses: factorial, parametric, uni-/multi-variate, whole-brain, ROIs etc. MEG:  Pre-processing, where relevant (filtering; maxfiltering; averaging procedure; artefact rejection; ICA)  Analyses in signal space (determine latency ranges/peaks; topographic analysis; SensorSPMs; time-frequency analysis; etc…)  How will EEG and MEG be combined or compared?  Analyses in source space (minimum norm, beamforming, dipoles…; whole-brain or ROI analysis; MRI pre-processing; etc…)  Non-standard analysis, e.g. DCM, DICS, etc. (please provide relevant details)  Software used (e.g. MNE, SPM5/8, FieldTrip); non-standard tools Analysis (4 slides)

5. Analysis (c’d) fMRI:  Acquisition: fMRI sequence, response collection, other non-standard procedures  Pre-processing (if relevant, e.g. smoothing kernel, movement parameters etc.)  Details of GLM: canonical HRF(s); FIR; which conditions modelled (incl. error trials, responses); covariates (1 st or 2 nd level); null events; baseline condition(s)  Non-standard analysis, e.g. DCM, MVPA, etc. (please provide relevant details)  Software used (e.g. SPM5/8, BrainVoyager, FSL); non-standard tools General:  How will MEG and fMRI be compared or combined? Different/same participants?  Prior experience with this analysis path? If not, what is the plan?  Illustration of possible results or "desired" outcome, e.g. in comparison to previous studies

6.  Open questions?  What will be the most challenging part of the project?  Are all methods already available?  Is some special support needed/desired?  Is there a time-line for acquisition/analysis/publication?  Ideas where to publish if desired results are obtained? Finally (1 slide)