Attached are design matrices and glass brain images for each. I noticed
the motion parameters were slightly different from each approach as well.
A screen shot of representative values for both is also included. These
were also included as regressors in the model for each.
Again thanks for all of the assistance.
-Drew
On 4/16/13 1:09 AM, "Watson, Christopher"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Would you mind attaching screenshots of both situations? It would help
>immensely in this situation, I should think. This is because, at first
>glance, using Nifti files from different programs should *not* produce
>different results. Perhaps the steps you went through were vastly
>different.
>________________________________________
>From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [[log in to unmask]] on behalf
>of Sevel,Landrew S [[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:20 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [SPM] Different Results with Imported DICOM vs NIFTI
>
>SPM,
>
>I was recently checking some data by comparing a 1st level contrast on an
>image from a 4D NIFTI file that was created by our scanner to an
>SPM-converted NIFTI, from the scanner's DICOMs, of the same contrast
>(processed the same way). This was done in SPM12b. In the DICOM import
>step, I did receive the message that the algorithm had to guess to
>construct the NIFTI. Nonetheless, the contrast image produced for each
>format is different (some activations in one are absent in another, and
>some activations occur in different places, resembling a coregistration
>error).
>
>What might account for these differences?
>
>Best,
>
>Drew
|