Yes, you can run the contrast (B>C)>(E>F), but you then need to inclusively mask the output (e.g. using imcalc) w the contrast of interest (i.e., B>C).
See Don McLaren's note:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1001&L=SPM&D=0&I=-3&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&P=123461
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
|