I have seen the same thing, i.e., "better" results with SPM96.
One possibility is that SPM99 alignment is a two pass process, whereas my
original SPM96 analysis used a one pass alignment. I am checking into that now.
sg
-----Original Message-----
From: chp
To: SPM mailing-list
Sent: 2/2/00 9:09 AM
Subject: comparision between spm96 and spm99
Dear all,
I still have some concerns about the comparability between the results
of
spm96 and spm99.
I have performed the analysis of different datasets (single subjects,
simple motor and speech tasks, block design) with spm96 and spm99 with
identical preprocessing and as similar as possible modelling in the
statistics section. I always got "better" results using spm96.
This means the locations of activations were basically the same.
However,
the significance was higher with spm96. At equal thresholds, there were
(more and especially) larger clusters with spm96 (identical smoothing!).
Altogether, activation appeared to be more robust with spm96.
Can anyone comment on this impression? Did anybody else compare the
results of the analysis using spm96 and spm99 respectively?
Thank you, Christine Preibisch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Christine Preibisch
Klinikum der Universitaet Frankfurt
ZRAD - Institut fuer Neuroradiologie
Schleusenweg 2-16
60528 Frankfurt
Germany
Phone: ++49 69 6301 4651
Fax: ++49 69 6301 5989
email: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|