JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FSL Archives


FSL Archives

FSL Archives


FSL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  April 2014

FSL April 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: GLM Setup for VBM with 2-groups and behavioral covariates

From:

Jon Siegel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 5 Apr 2014 07:31:54 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

Hi Mark,
Thank you so much for your response. I just pulled some arbitrary numbers, but you’re right that the ones I posted do seem like they’re centered around 1 (this isn’t the case though). It looks like I need to run two separate randomise commands, the first initially looking to see if local GM volume has a linear relationship with both groups and the second looking to see within each group (since it’s possible that GM volume predicts memory performance differently for young and older adults). I appreciate your help tremendously. 
On a side note, I also used the fsl_anat script to just test it out and it spits out some biascorr_brian.nii.gz files, but is there a way to transform them back so that I could then run them through the traditional VBM pipeline (creating my study-specific template) and then into the fslvbm_3_proc stage? It seems like the fsl_anat has done an excellent job cleaning up the brains and I’m curious to see if the results are similar using that pipeline instead. Thanks again for the great advice. 
Best,
Jon
 
On Apr 5, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Mark Jenkinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> Firstly, although you've "centered" your ICV values, they look like they are centered about 1.0, and not about 0.  For the GLM, it assumes a linear relationship (not a multiplicative one) and so the ICV values need to be centred around 0.  This is also true for all other covariates that you want to add to the model.  With your current model there is quite a lot of shared signal between the mean of both groups and the ICV, making the results difficult to interpret cleanly.
> 
> To add a new covariate to the model then you can put it as any EV (the order does not matter as they are all fitted together, not one at a time).  The key is to associate the non-zero entries in the contrast with the appropriate EV.  So if you keep EV3 as the ICV (but zero centred) and add your extra covariate (also zero centred) as EV4, then you can have contrasts such as [0 0 0 1] and [0 0 0 -1] that test for linear relationships (of appropriate signs) between your new covariate and the local GM volume.  This test would be across both groups if you did it like this.  
> 
> If you wanted to see if there was a separate relationship in each group then you need to split this new covariate across two EVs - that is, EV4 and EV5 - where EV4 would have zeros for one group and the demeaned (i.e. centred) covariate values for one group and zeros for the other group, and EV5 would be the other way around (zeros for the opposite group ...).  The normal recommendation for demeaning (centering) in this situation would be to take all the covariate values for this quantity and demean prior to splitting them into the two subgroups.  This would then do the conservative test and account for any potential differences in the mean values of the covariate between groups, splitting any group difference in local GM volume between the group EVs (EV1 and EV2) and the new EVs.  However, if you have a strong prior argument that any difference in local GM volume could not be attributed to group differences in the mean of your covariate value, then you can demean within each group separately, but be warned that this is a very strong assumption and you would need to have very good reasons and evidence to choose to do the analysis this way.  The safer, and generally recommended, alternative is to demean across both groups together (as a single set of values) and then split the demeaned values into the separate EVs.
> 
> For more details on demeaning and centering, see the FSL wiki page on GLM, as well as Jeanette Mumford's pages (there is a link from the FSL wiki) and also the FSL Course slides (the third fMRI lecture - Advanced Topics - is where this material is).
> 
> All the best,
> 	Mark
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 Apr 2014, at 20:15, Jon Siegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi FSL Experts,
>> I've searched through the message board and the archives and it seems like there's quite a lot of questions about the design files for contrasts and matrix. I just wanted to make sure that I'm setting things up correctly for my experiment.
>> I have 2 separate groups (Older adults and Young adults; n=18 and n=21 respectively) that I'm attempting to perform VBM on, but beyond the significant volumetric differences between the two groups, I'd like to know how to create the contrasts for testing the correlation/association of these specific brain regions with memory performance measure(s). I've been able to run the whole-brain analyses with controlling for ICV by creating the following matrix:
>> 
>> EV1= Old (OA), EV2= Young (YA), EV3= ICV (scaling factor centered)
>> 1       0     1.2345
>> 1       0       .8652
>> 1       0       .6587
>> 0       0      1.1365
>> 0       0       .9874 
>> 0       0       1.3245
>> 
>> I then created the following contrasts based off the two group difference adjusted for covariate:
>> c1 = 1   -1   0  --> Old > YA
>> c2=  -1   1   0  --> YA > OA
>> c3=  0    0   1  --> Pos effect of ICV/scaling factor
>> c4=  0    0   -1 --> Neg effect of ICV/scaling factor
>> Are these setup correctly?
>> 
>> If so, I'd now like to modify the analyses and investigate whether these significant differences in brain volume between OA and YA are also associated with one or more of our behavioral performance measures (ie, Memory interference). From what I've read, I can just add another EV (Proactive Interference score centered) of interest into the GLM, but how exactly do I setup the contrasts? I assume that I'd want to put the behavioral variable of interest into the GLM before controlling for any nuisance variables, which would then make EV3= memory score centered and EV4= ICV. But again, I'm confused at how to setup the contrasts.
>> 
>> For your reference, I'd like to look and see whether there is a correlation/association between GM volume and memory performance overall, as well as for each group separately. Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time and please let me know if you need any additional information.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Jonathan Siegel
>> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager