Hello All,
I would do as Chris suggests but inclusively mask with B>C.
Geoff
On 5 July 2010 02:07, Paloyelis, Yannis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if [0 1 -1 0 -1 1] would be appropriate, or whether B>C - E>F should be calculated separately and then use imcalc to get their difference. -If the purpose is to get voxels responding to B>C uniquely ...
>
> Any comments-I'm also interested in this contrast.
>
> Thanks s lot,
> Yannis
>
>
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 18:48, Chris Watson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I think you would want [0 1 -1 0 -1 1]
>> because (B - C) - (E - F) = B - C - E + F.
>>
>> Will McGeown wrote:
>>> Dear experts,
>>> I was wondering how I might model the following design in a first level analysis. I would like to receive one contrast image per participant (in order to run a second level correlation).
>>> The design is across 4 sessions and looks something like this:
>>> A B C A B C D E F D E F
>>> I would like to know what areas are significant for (B > C)>(E>F)
>>> The directions of the analysis are very important.
>>> If it is possible, how should I define the contrast to model this?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>
|