Dear Radek (and Thomas and Natasha),
You asked whether you should specify the subject factor when testing for
between-group main effects in a flexible factorial design. As you correctly
noted, the between-subject variance is crucial for assessing the
significance of between-group effects. Specifying the subject factor removes
just this variance from the error term.
Therefore, you should *not* specify the subject factor when testing for
between-group effects. As we understand from your email, Radek, you were
testing for the main effect of group.
Of course, specifying the subject factor is correct when testing for
interactions between within-subject and a between-subject factors. We think
this is the point Darren makes in his reply:
"Assuming you have two groups, for
example, the main effect should be a difference, which should also
model differences at the subject level between groups and with respect
to any interactions."
Stephen states the same:
" So, while the "main effect" of subject is regressed out, the interaction
of subject and treatment still remains and is used to compute significance
of the condition effect."
So, specify the subject factor when testing for interactions with group, but
not when testing for main effect of group. Therefore, "yes and no" is
actually a correct answer to your question.
As an aside, we note that this is a common error, as exemplified also by the
email "2nd Level ANOVA 2x3x3xsubj" by Thomas. Here the parameterplot of his
F-contrast of the group effect nicely illustrates that most of the relevant
variance between groups has been (erroneously) explained away by adding the
subject factor (though we are not sure this actually causes the error
message when plotting).
Natasha (Between group tests for task main effects & group*task interactions
- one-way ANOVA?), we hope this answers (part of) your questions too.
HTH,
Laura Menenti and Lennart Verhagen
-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Gitelman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 01 April, 2009 16:50
Subject: Re: flexible factorial - main effect of subject factor
Radek
If you want to do a repeated measures mixed effects design you should
enter the subject effects. Since you didn't specify the contrasts you
used I wonder if you may have setup an average effect of group rather
than the main effect of group. Assuming you have two groups, for
example, the main effect should be a difference, which should also
model differences at the subject level between groups and with respect
to any interactions.
-----
Darren Gitelman
2009/4/1 Radek Mareček <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear SPMers,
>
> we have an experiment with 2 groups of subjects (controls/patients) and
> 3 conditions for each subject. We set the 2nd level analysis using
> flexible factorial design option in SPM5.
>
> The main effect of subject, group and condition and interaction of
> group/condition were included in design matrix.
>
> The contrast weights for main effect of group was set according to
> technical note of Jan Glascher and Darren Gitelman.
>
> The problem is when the main effect of subject is included in design
> matrix. This results in widespread activation on 0.05 FWE level with
> very high t-values. When the main effect of subject factor is not
> included in the design matrix the activation is less extensive (and
> probably more credible).
> This is in accord with the Darren Gitelman's note of improved
> sensitivity of a model where the main effect of subject is included in
> the design matrix.
>
> The question:
> When the subject effect is included the inter-subject variability
> doesn't end up in residuals (or at least not all) which induce higher
> t-values. But isn't the inter-subject variability crucial for assesing
> of significance of tested effect?
> Am I completely wrong? Which design is more resonable then?
>
> Thank you for any comments or notes on this issue.
>
>
> Radek Marecek
> Dep. of Neurology
> St. Anne's University Hospital
> Masaryk University
> Brno, Czech Republic
>
|