JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  January 2009

SPM January 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Orthoganlity / specificity / contrast issue; advice welcome!

From:

Virginia Flanagin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Virginia Flanagin <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:51:24 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Rik and James,

It is funny that this should come up, a PhD student in our lab had a similar
problem with columns of her design matrix with parametric modulation that
some of the columns disappeared for some of the subjects. It turned out,
after looking more carefully, that the randomization she had used for the
experiment caused some of the sessions to contain only 2 or 3 of the 5
possible values of the parametric modulation. We were originally trying to
model the modulation up to a factor of three (cubic), but after we found
this we left the modulation as linear and the problem with the missing
columns was solved without having to change any of the default parameters of
SPM5 regarding orthogonalisation. And I didn't have to look at where this
was occurring in the code and I was more sure that the PhD student was using
the right model. 

Hope this sheds some insight.
Best,
Virginia


On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:14:49 +0000, Rik Henson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>James -
>
>Firstly, just to clarify for others - SPM does not perform any
>"auto-orthogonalisation" of regressors, except when using multiple
>parametric modulations of the same condition.
>
>If you have multiple parametric modulations of the same condition and
>these are (partially) correlated, this is not necessarily a problem.
>Only if they are linearly-dependent is there a problem, which should
>lead to blank regressors *with* orthogonalisation (not after turning it
>off?), so I am a bit puzzled by your email (I am also confused why you
>have different numbers of columns - I wasn't aware that SPM would ever
>do this?). So is there something else going wrong with your batch
>creation of design matrices?
>
>More generally, you do not necessarily need to be concerned about grey
>bars indicating that betas for some columns are not estimiable unless
>you are interested in contrasts like [0 1 0 0 ...] on just that column
>(eg other contrasts, like [0 1 0 -1...] might well be estimiable). But I
>assume you are interested in the former type of contrast (eg on a single
>parametric modulator) and one way that you can bypass the contrast
>manager's check is to define and estimate the contrast by a direct call
>as below:
>
>    SPM.xCon(n) = spm_FcUtil('Set',cname,'T','c',c,SPM.xX.xKXs);
>    spm_contrasts(SPM);
>
>where n is the next contrast number and c is the contrast (column
>vector) you want to estimate (and 'T' can be 'F' instead). The
>spm_FcUtil will actually reproject the contrast to make it estimiable,
>but take care that the new project contrast is still interpretable.
>
>Rik
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We're currently having problems with our design matrices/contrast
>> analysis that I'd appreciate some help on. (FYI: SPM5, Matlab 7.6).
>>
>> Originally, our design matrices were occasionally showing differing
>> numbers of columns as well as grey bars indicating that the betas were
>> not uniquely specificied. Following Rik Henson's link yesterday I turned
>> SPM's "auto-orthogonaliser" off and this resulted in matrices with the
>> correct number of columns - but now showing the black lines that were
>> previously (presumably) being excluded which explained the different
>> sized matrices - many thanks for that.
>>
>> However, we still have the problem of columns that are
>> non-uniquely-specified - which cannot be used in any contrasts (the
>> contrast manager will not permit a "1" on any columns that had this
>> (grey box)).
>>
>> Rather than explain the whole design, I wondered if anyone had any good
>> advice on how generally to deal with betas not being uniquely specified
>> - for example, is it best to drop the whole session? Can the contrast
>> manager's refusal to run be over-ridden?
>>
>> I want to be able to batch process the contrasts and so ideally don't
>> want to end up with different columns numbers with different parameters
>> for each subject etc as this would mean I'd have to manually enter
>> contrasts for each subject and with N=36 that'd take some time.
>>
>> If anyone has any thoughts on the best way forward that would be much
>> appreciated.
>>
>>
>> James Gilleen
>> IOP
>> London, SE5 8AF
>> tel: 0207 848 0542
>>
>
>--
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>                 Dr Richard Henson
>         MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit
>                 15 Chaucer Road
>                   Cambridge
>                  CB2 7EF, UK
>
>           Office: +44 (0)1223 355 294 x522
>              Mob: +44 (0)794 1377 345
>              Fax: +44 (0)1223 359 062
>
>http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/rik.henson/personal
>-------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager