Hi,
> If I am to understand the discussion, applying SVC to VBM is
> (relatively) valid if an explicit assumption is made about
> stationariness in relation to the smoothness of the regions undergoing
> SVC relative to the average smoothness of the image (grey matter
> partitions smoothed with 8-12mm kernel).
I know this is terribly obvious, but the assumption of stationarity
doesn't make the image any more stationary, and so does not make the
analysis any more valid.
I think what Satoru is saying is that there can still be significant
non-stationarity in VBM analyses even at 12mm smoothing, and for this
reason, the cluster statistic will be unreliable in SPM (but not
fmristat). On the other hand the height correction will be fairly
accurate - although you should correct for the smoothness within the
ROI itself.
Is that fair Satoru?
Best,
Matthew
|