Hi,
Ok, thanks. I checked the report.log files, and apparently some used 3.3.1
and some used 3.3.7. So, I suppose that must be it!
The group analysis can run through using 3.2, which doesn't seem to mind
about combining 3.3.1 and 3.3.7 firstlevels as much as 3.3 does. I've asked
around and a number of people have had the same error come up and solved it
by sticking with 3.2 for group analyses. I'm just wondering, is there
anything in particular that makes it a bad idea to use 3.2 instead of 3.3
for the higher level analysis (so that I can avoid re-running all my lower
level analyses, if possible)?
thanks,
Katie
> From: Steve Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:39:50 +0000
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [FSL] premature end of expression
>
> Hi - if all the contrasts are consistent then this is possibly due to
> mixing versions of FEAT. It is complaining at the stage when it is
> reading the old .con and .mat files for peak-peak height....
> You _might_ fix this by re-running
> feat_model design
> in each FEAT directory.....otherwise the simplest thing would be to
> stick to one version for the whole analysis.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2006, at 20:03, Katie Karlsgodt wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I'm running a higher level analysis comparing 2 groups. When I
>> load the
>> .fsf into Fsl3.3, I get the following error:
>>
>> dlpfc:/space/raid3/data/cannon/hbm_prodromal_vcap/GROUP_ANALYSES>
>> syntax
>> error in expression "0 + ": premature end of expression
>> while executing
>> "expr $mean_lcon + $mean_lcon_incr "
>> (procedure "feat5:proc" line 291)
>> invoked from within
>> "feat5:proc [ file rootname [ lindex $argv 0 ] ]"
>> (file "/space/raid/fmri/fsl3.3.7/bin/feat" line 16)
>>
>> Based on the report.log, its crashing at varcope5. I've checked to
>> see that
>> all the subjects have the same number of contrasts (9), and looked at
>> everyone's varcope5 using slicesdir, just to make sure an image really
>> exists. I noticed a previous email about this in the archives, but
>> it seemed
>> that the problem there was not having the same contrasts for each
>> subject,
>> and (at least as far as I can tell right now), I don't think thats
>> what is
>> happening here.
>>
>> It does run through when I load the same .fsf into 3.2, though. So,
>> I can
>> run it in 3.2, but I'd like to understand why its happening- is
>> possible
>> that 3.3 might have a small bug that is not in 3.2, or that 3.3 is
>> sensitive
>> to some problem with the data that 3.2 isn't picking up on? Is
>> there any
>> reason its not ok to just run it in 3.2 instead?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Katie
>> ___________________________________
>> Katie Karlsgodt
>> Dept of Psychology/Cognitive Neuroscience
>> University of California, Los Angeles
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> phone: (310) 794-9673
>> fax: (310) 794-9740
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
> Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre
>
> FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
> +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
> [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
>
>
|