Your contrast looks wrong - seems like you are comparing the constant (+1,
last column) against the 3rd column (-1)
You probably should use something like a [1 0 0 0] to assess the PPI
Hth
C
************
Dr. Claus Lamm
Research Associate
Social Cognitive Neuroscience
Department of Psychology
The University of Chicago
5848 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637
Phone: (773) 702-4661 Fax: (773) 702-0886
EMail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://scnl.org/claus.html
-----Original Message-----
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Shaquanda Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SPM] Nonsensical results from sample SPM5 data set. What are we
doing wrong?
Dear SPMers,
We have been playing around with the sample SPM data set available here
(attention to visual motion):
http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/datasets/attention.html
We have analyzed the results using the directions listed in the
"README_GLM_PPI.txt" data set (using the updated SPM5), but as you can see
by the screen shot, we are obviously getting results that do not make sense
(i.e. t values in the hundreds). We are probably doing some thing simple
wrong, but it is not obvious to us yet what that is. Any suggestions would
be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Shaqunada
Nonsensical results from sample SPM5 data set. What are we doing wrong?
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
|