Dear Kazutaka
I would like a bit more information about your paradigm, could you e.g.
send the designmatrix to me. However I think the reviewers' biasing
issue could be the result of a paper by Cathy Price et al. I did find
the paper mysterious when I read it and commented on in a previous mail
some time ago:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0107&L=spm&P=R1330&I=-3
see also the attached postscript, where I have tried to illustrate why
it should not be a problem.
Regards
Torben E, Lund
Danish Research Centre for MR
K.Ueda wrote:
>Dear SPM experts,
>
>I'm wondering how to respond to a reviewer's comment of our submitted paper
>and would appreciate any help.
>
>Briefly, I used a cognitive task. The trial length is 12 seconds. Scan
>acquisition (TR = 4s) was synchronized to the onset of the trial. I
>performed the regression analyses. The regressors were $B!H (Bon $B!I (B for the first
>4 sec periods of the trial.
>
>Reviewer gave me the comment described below,
>...If each trial is indeed 12s long, that presents possible problem... The
>trial length of 12 seconds is a direct multiple of the TR (4000ms), which
>introduces a systematic sampling error into the data...
>
>I can $B!G (Bt understand the meaning of $B!H (B a systematic sampling error $B!I (B.
>Please give me any advice about $B!H (Ba systematic sampling error $B!I (B.
>
>Regards,
>
>Kazutaka Ueda
>University of Hiroshima
>
>
|