JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  2000

SPM 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: realignment parameters

From:

Rik Henson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Rik Henson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:42:29 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)


Tobias -

> I have a question concerning the correction for movement artifacts using the
> realignment parameters.
> 
> We have several fMRI-datasets which show deviations from the reference image over
> the time course of the experiment, as can be seen in the "ps"-file graphs after
> the realignment procedure.
> 
> However, those deviations are considerably different from subject to subject.
> They range from a maximum of about 1.5 mm in one subject to about 5 mm in another
> subject. Unfortunately, we are not able to completely eliminate head movements by
> better fixation of the head so that we just have to deal with the movements.
> 
> Now my questions are:
> 
> Is there any rule of thumb as to when to include the realignment parameters in
> the design matrix ?

If the movement parameters were uncorrelated with your effects of
interest,
their inclusion in your model can produce a significant improvement in
your
model fit and results (by accounting for unwanted additional variance). 

The danger comes when movement is correlated with your effects of
interest
(eg head movement each time a stimulus is presented). Including the
movement
parameters in this case will reduce your power in detecting the effects
of 
interest. While you could orthogonalise the movement parameters with
respect 
to your effects of interest, still potentially improving overall model
fit, 
there is no way of knowing whether the shared variance (that is
effectively 
attributed to your effects of interest in this case) really reflects
signal 
changes owing to your effects of interest, or simply movement artifact.

I prefer to err on the side of caution, and include movement parameters 
(without orthogonalisation). While I might miss real activations 
that happen to be correlated with movement (ie type II errors), I view 
this as less serious than making false positives owing to movement
artifact (ie type I errors). In my experience, their inclusion often 
actually improves model fits and my results (by soaking up residual
error).


> And if I decide to include them, do I always have to use all six of them or just
> the ones exceeding some criteria, in other words showing the greatest
> translations ?

I use all 6, because overall df's are normally high in a Fixed Effects
model
with multiple scans (and these df's are irrelevant to subsequent Random
Effect analyses). If you wanted a more parsimonious model, you could 
include just the first few principal components of the movement
parameters.

 
> Moreover, if I include them for one subject, don't I have to include them
> automatically for all others, since, as far as my understanding goes, those
> additional covariates change the overall model ?

I would include them for all subjects, for consistency (and so that the 
subject models are more "balanced" for subsequent Random Effects
analysis).
As for affecting the model, it depends what you mean by "overall model". 
If you are referring to a group, Fixed Effects model, I would include 
movement parameters as separate columns for each subject (the default
case 
if entered as user-specified regressors in SPM). In this case, while
they do 
affect "overall model" fit in terms of residual error, they do not
affect 
the parameter estimates for other subjects.


> I analyzed several datasets both with and without inclusion of the realignment
> parameters and got considerably different results for some of them.
> So, I am not sure about how to proceed because of that.

To be expected, since they change the residual error and might be
correlated
with your effects of interest (see above). You could test the
correlation 
between your covariates of interest and the movement covariates (check
the 
orthogonality matrix for example).

Rik

-- 
---------------------------8-{)}-------------------------

DR R HENSON              
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience &
Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology
17 Queen Square          
London, WC1N 3AR
England         

EMAIL: 	[log in to unmask] 
URL: 	http://www.psychol.ucl.ac.uk/rik.henson/index.html
TEL1 	+44 (0)20 7679 1131
TEL2 	+44 (0)20 7833 7472
FAX	+44 (0)20 7813 1420

---------------------------------------------------------
--


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager