Thank you for your recommendation.
It sounds everybody can make something with the cluster-based correction.
I was not able to find any significant change after either '-c 3' and '-c
2' option with 5000 times permutation.
Please let me know what in tstat maps give me suggestion to decide
adequate '-c value'.
Could you see my t maps?
thanks,
bsJeong
> Hi,
>
> I would definitely recommend to present some results
> corrected for multiple comparisons, rather than going
> for any voxel number threshold in your uncorrected
> maps.
> It looks like you have a lot of significant
> uncorrected results for p<0.005, so I am quite
> surprised you do not obtain anything with the
> cluster-based correction.
> What t threshold have you used in your randomise
> option -c? You may have chosen a too stringent level.
> I would therefore suggest to look at your tstat maps
> to find out which -c would seem reasonable to enter...
>
> Best,
> Gwenaelle
>
>
> --- bs Jeong <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>
>> Dear FSLer
>>
>> I did TBSS analysis.
>> But I did not any significant difference between
>> groups in cluster level.
>> So I'd rather find something in tbss_vox_stat with p
>> value or tbss_tstat
>> with t value.
>> Problem is that so many regions are showed as
>> difference btw group even
>> though 1-p value is thresholded with 0.9949.
>> Is there any method to threshold with consecutive
>> voxel number?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> bsjeong
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions
> !
> Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des
> internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
> http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
>
|