hmm.. hmm.. on careful re-tracing of how I got the results I mentioned,
there was a mistake in my script. After the fix everything matches as
expected.
apologies!!
martin
Martin M Monti wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I read the previous post on FSL and the spatial smoothness estimation
> as the reason for the different p-values, as compared to the FEAT
> output. I'd like to know if the same applies to this case:
>
> Trying to compare my current dataset with previous ones I ran
> easythresh on a zstat image (in its first form e.g. > easythresh
> zstat1 mask Z.z P.pp background output ) varying the cluster
> thresholding so to match my previous analyses. However, having read
> the previous posts on the topic I also ran one easythresh using the
> same Z and p cluster thresholding values as those employed in the full
> FLAME2 analysis (from which the zstat1 is taken).
>
> I was expecting to just see different p-values, however it turns out
> that in the easythresh output, not only I get all the clusters that I
> get in FEAT, but I also see additional activations.
>
> I'm now uncertain on 2 points:
>
> 1) How do I interpret the additional activations? Should I consider
> them as real or as springing from the different algorithm used in
> easythresh?)
> 2) Is indeed easythresh meant to provide a quick way to look at data
> at different thresholds without having to re run a full analysis
> (which with FLAME2 here takes multiple days...)
>
> Could I get some thoughts on the point please?
>
> all the best
>
> martin
>
>
|