Dear Siri,
yes, that's a good check for the choice of connections in a model and
should be completely sufficient to justify using this basic model
structure for the particular paradigm you use.
Best wishes,
Klaas
At 01:02 12/05/2006, you wrote:
>Hello, DCMers (Klaas, Will, et al.)
>
>I have a question about justification for the selection of connections
>within a DCM model.
>
>Consulting primate literature and studies of effective/functional
>connectivity, I have assembled a network of anatomical nodes and
>connections among these nodes. This is not a fully interconnected network,
>as not all regions were connected to one another, and not all connections
>were reciprocal. However, all included connections are justified by
>primate projection studies. I have also assembled a fully interconnected
>network, as well as a much sparser, more "conceptual" network of
>connections that include all of these regions, for the purposes of DCM
>model comparison with these two networks. I created all three networks for
>all of my control study participants, averaged them across the group, and
>then performed a DCM model comparison between the 3 averaged networks.
>
>If it turns out, after performing the DCM model comparison, that the
>network I have assembled has a greater fit to the data, by both Akakies
>and Bayesian criteria, is this sufficient justification for selection of
>this particular model for a study in which I want to compare alterations
>in effective connectivity within said network due to, say, brain disease?
>
>I eagerly await a reply from the DCM experts!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Siri Sonty
|