Matthew,
But having read this again - I think I've missed his
point entirely ! - as Dan's talking about thresholding
(at whatever value) and I'm specifically talking about
uncorrected thresholds.
Oh well, guess I'll call it quits for this week !
See you,
Will.
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew,
I just wanted to emphasise Dan's point:
> I don't know if this is true or not, but I feel like unthresholded
> maps are in general much more effective than thresholded maps at
> encouraging people to draw unsupported conclusions. There are lots of
> interesting patterns in noise, especially when the data are spatially
> smooth.
with a simple, practical example.
Best,
Will.
Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
>
>>LESSON
>>
>>Beware the uncorrected map !
>
>
> I wasn't quite sure which part of the discussion the lesson was aimed
> at - could you clarify?
>
> See you,
>
> Matthew
>
>
--
William D. Penny
Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience
University College London
12 Queen Square
London WC1N 3BG
Tel: 020 7833 7475
FAX: 020 7813 1420
Email: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/
--
William D. Penny
Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience
University College London
12 Queen Square
London WC1N 3BG
Tel: 020 7833 7475
FAX: 020 7813 1420
Email: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/
|