Folks,
My lab also eagerly is awaiting this patch.
Many thanks for your superb work!
david
Steve Smith wrote:
> Hi - yes, sorry - we'll aim for early next week.
> Cheers.
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2007, at 18:51, Tyler Lesh wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I'm having a similar problem as Eric with empty EV's and contrasts.
>> Is there
>> any update as to when the patch might be available?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tyler
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:24:06 +0100, Steve Smith
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - yes, this should work - it's just a case of persuading FEAT that
>>> all is well. We've just made some minor amendments to the scripts to
>>> allow empty EVs to run through ok and even contrasts involving empty
>>> EVs (effectively assumes that the relevant PE is zero even though
>>> this can't be estimated properly). This will be released in the next
>>> patch release, probably next week.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Steve.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2007, at 19:30, Eric Claus wrote:
>>>
>>>> FSLers,
>>>> I am trying to run first level analyses for each run of a 3-run
>>>> fMRI study.
>>>> Within each run, there are several trial types, but because the
>>>> classification of a trial depends on the participant's response,
>>>> there are
>>>> some cases where 1 or more trial types do not exist in a given
>>>> run. For
>>>> each trial type, I have a separate EV file and for the cases in
>>>> which no
>>>> trials exist, the empty EV option in FSL is chosen.
>>>>
>>>> 2 questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. When trying to run the subject's model, I get a rank deficiency
>>>> message
>>>> which seems to be expected given the empty EVs. If all the other
>>>> EVs in the
>>>> model look correct (i.e. are not linear combinations of one
>>>> another), are
>>>> the results of the analysis valid?
>>>>
>>>> 2. If I have 4 EVs: EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 and a given subject has an
>>>> empty EV for
>>>> EV2, how does this affect any contrast with EV2? For example, if a
>>>> contrast
>>>> of 1 -1 0 0 is used, is the resulting statistical map equivalent to
>>>> the
>>>> mean/fit for EV1 or should the stat map be zero, given that the two
>>>> conditions are not really being compared? Further, if the
>>>> participant has
>>>> valid trials for runs 2 and 3 in both EV1 and EV2, when I do the fixed
>>>> effects analysis for this subject, is the run1 contrast included in
>>>> the mean?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---
>>> =========================================================================
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
David Schnyer, Ph.D.
Imaging Research Center &
Department of Psychology
University of Texas, Austin
tel: (512) 471-8505
fax: (512) 232-4202
http://irc.utexas.edu/
|