Hi Steve,
I'm still confused:
1. So by default, featquery binarises the mask and since it's already binarised, tsplot doesn't need
the -n option?
2. Shouldn't the partial model fit and reduced data data be different if you turn the binarise option
on and off in featquery? In my case tsplot_zstat1.txt is identical in the two cases.
3. Back to my original question: if the mask is binarised, shouldn't "data" and "full model fit" be
identical across EVs?
thanks,
jack
>Hi - that's right - in featquery the mask weighting option determines
>whether the featquery mask is binarised or not _before_ passing this into
>tsplot with the -m options - hence the tsplot -n option isn't needed.
>
>Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>
>On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Jack Grinband wrote:
>
>> After looking at the log file, it appears to me that the "Do not binarise mask (allow weighting)"
>> button, doesn't actually add the -n option. Is this correct?
>>
>> jack
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 04:54:50 +0100, Jack Grinband <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi All,
>> >I'm a bit confused by the definition of "data" and "full model fit" in the tsplot output. If I have
a
>> >model with several EVs, I would expect that "data" for EV1 should be the same as "data" for
EV2
>> >(that is, data averaged across all voxels within an ROI). Similarly, I would expect the "full
model
>> >fits" to be the same for the two EVs. But I get different values for "data" even though I have
"Do
>> >not binarise mask" turned off. What am I missing?
>> >thanks,
>> >
>> >jack
>>
>
>--
> Stephen M. Smith DPhil
> Associate Director, FMRIB and Analysis Research Coordinator
>
> Oxford University Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain
> John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
> +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
>
> [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
>===========================================================
==============
|