I'm sure the danger is always there, and we can never be totally 'ensured'
about anything invovling imaging and we assume a lot (whether in VBM or
functional analysis), but if resonable assumptions are met, is it
appropriate to be too cautious and commit false negative errors?
best
Lena
At 09:34 22/02/2005 -0800, Matthew Brett wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Karl's email that Robert is referring to also makes a suggestion at
>> ensuring (in a relative sense of the word) the validity of SVC with VBM by
>> making an explicit stationariness assumption
>
>I guess there must be some danger in ensuring by assuming...
>
>Best,
>
>Matthew
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Elena Antonova
Post Doctoral Research Worker
PO78 Department of Psychology
Institute of Psychiatry
King's College London
De Crespigney Park
Denmark Hill
London SE5 8AF
UK
tel: +44 (0) 207 919 3048
fax: +44 (0) 207 919 2116
email: [log in to unmask]
|