I should just add that what I meant to say is that there is no
guaranteed backward compatibility. Images preprocessed in SPM5 can
still be used in SPM8, but for the many parts of SPM that work with
saved .mat files, the compatibility is not necessarily guaranteed.
Best regards,
-John
On 19 October 2011 12:23, John Ashburner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is no backward compatibility between major releases of SPM. If
> an spm.mat file is generated with SPM5, then it will not work in SPM8.
> In this case, it is because of a change to the data structure (saved
> in spm.mat) used for reading data via spm_sample_vol or spm_slice_vol.
>
> Best regards,
> -John
>
> On 19 October 2011 10:39, <Mona K> <Beyer> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi all experts,
>>
>> I am working on a dataset that was preprocessed in spm5 by a colleague who is not working with us anymore. There are two
>> patient groups and paired controls for all patients. The groups are n=62, and n=69.
>>
>> I tried to open the spm.mat file that was made by my colleague who did the preprocessing. I got the following error message
>> in spm8, see below. So I thought that I had to open it in spm5, but unfortunately I got the exact same error message. Any
>> suggestions why?
>>
>> SPM8: spm_results_ui (v3928) 09:07:11 - 19/10/2011
>> ========================================================================
>> SPM computation : ...initialisingError with file spmT_0002.img
>> ??? Error using ==> spm_sample_vol
>> Wrong sized dim.
>>
>> Error in ==> spm_get_data at 44
>> Y(i,:) = spm_sample_vol(V(i),XYZ(1,:),XYZ(2,:),XYZ(3,:),0);
>>
>> Error in ==> spm_getSPM at 598
>> Z = min(Z,spm_get_data(xCon(i).Vspm,XYZ));
>>
>> Error in ==> spm_results_ui at 263
>> [SPM,xSPM] = spm_getSPM;
>>
>> ??? Error while evaluating uicontrol Callback
>>
>> A second thing:
>>
>> We then decided to make new spm.mat files. We have compared the control group with patient group for one of the diseases,
>> and find surprisingly that the controls have extensive atrophy compared to patients, remember they are perfectly matched for
>> age and sex. This is in contrast to some volume data we have, where the patients both have smaller brain volume and
>> hippocampal volumes.Is there something new with defining of the contrasts that can be the reason for this?? I am familiar with
>> spm2, and thus define contrast in the same way as for spm2, are things changed to the opposite now?
>>
>> I hope you have the time to reply to this frustrating and puzzling finding.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Mona K Beyer
>> Stavanger
>>
>
|