>I know this is going to seem very tedious to everyone, but the
>thresholded map does not address my assertion 1, and therefore doesn't
>address localization. I
i'm not sure the unthresholded map does much better here...suppose you
wanted a test of the difference between two voxels....you would need to
know at least the difference between the means and the standard
deviation....a single image doesn't tell you this, right? I guess this is
similar to tom's call for a variance image. but including two images takes
up valuable space. Also...another issue that hasn't been discussed is the
colormap of the image...it's very difficult to tell what the value's
actually are in most colormaps used.
given that it is easy to show
>the 'significant' areas on the continuous map, the thresholded map has
>no advantages that I can see.
There may be a cost...It seems to me that you lose some of the anatomic
context....even if you used a semitransparent display you then decrease the
clarity of both the statistic and the anatomic underlay.
Also...many folks display multiple contrasts on a single image each with
different colors....you can't do this with an unthresholded image...this
then means you would have to have a separate image for each....this is a
cost as well.
This has been an interesting discussion...
Cheers,
vince
|