Thanks for the reply,
Doesn't that mean that anyone using the GUI w/ SPM5 has no way of
specifying nuisance variables?
-Kevin Hill
Volkmar Glauche wrote:
> Dear Kevin,
>
> this is the intended behaviour for regressors, because they can't be
> assumed to be nuisance in general. The only bug is that the job
> configuration does not allow to set nuisance covariates at all.
>
> Volkmar
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 27.02.2008, 14:56 -0800 schrieb Kevin Hill:
>
>> Hello, we seem to be experiencing a minor problem with spm_jobman with
>> all versions of spm5.
>>
>> the 'jobs' struct has two fields:
>> jobs{1}.stats{1}.fmri_spec.sess.multi and
>> jobs{1}.stats{1}.fmri_spec.sess.multi_reg which I believe are supposed
>> to hold location of files which contain the covariates of interest and
>> nuisance regressors respectively. However the resulting SPM structure
>> has all of the regressors specified by the files indicated in both
>> fields as covariates of interest in SPM.xX.iC, and no regressors are
>> listed in SPM.xX.iG, as I think they should be. So I have two questions:
>>
>> 1) Am I specifying the nuisance regressors incorrectly? If so, what is
>> the proper way to specify them?
>>
>> 2) My understanding is that the non-sphericity of the noise is computed
>> only in the voxels which pass a F-test for the covariates of interest,
>> so would this bug/error result in a small mischaracterization of the noise?
>>
>> -Kevin Hill
>>
>>
|