Regarding alternatives, I'll defer to others that have had success in
getting "case study" rs-fcMRI studies published.
Good luck,
-MH
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:54 +0000, David Soto wrote:
> Hi, thanks for that; I know about the independence issue from the
> statistical perspective
>
>
> I thought about this becos it is a common trick used in behaviour
> neuropsychological studies of single patients, where
> dependent measures are not independent but treated as such....
>
>
> what would be the alternative option then?
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Michael Harms
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 4-5 scans of the same subject are not going to be
> "independent" scans.
> Statistics resulting from treating them as independent are not
> likely to
> be valid.
>
> cheers,
> -MH
>
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 09:03 +0000, David Soto wrote:
> > Apologies for re-posting this in a short time period. I am a
> bit on a hurry on this because the patients
> > are coming for a scan this thursday and would like to know
> how best to use the time
> >
> > The thing is that we have a couple of focal lesion patients
> (with a rather interesting behavioural impairment)
> > and we want to assess resting state functional connectivity
> with regard a group of age match controls. using concat ICA
> followed by dual regression.
> >
> > What I thought to increase power (given only 2 patients),
> is to take 4 or 5 resting state scans for each of the 2
> patients-- this way can have 8-10 samples which I could
> 'treat' as the patient group into randomise of dual
> regression, so each resting state scan would be treated as an
> 'independent' subject
> >
> > what you do think? any advise appreciated
> >
> > Thanks, David
>
>
|