Reply-To: | | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi Veronica, > >> > >> as Marko mentioned, it would be great if you could show us the > >> differences you observe in the results you obtain when the only > change > >> is the MATLAB version (screenshot of the Result page and, > possibly, copy > >> of the folders containing the SPM.mat). I would not expect > significant > >> differences so it would be interesting to get to the bottom of this. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Guillaume. > >> > >> On 05/10/16 07:11, Marko Wilke wrote: > >>> Veronica, > >>> > >>> while I do not have an answer, I believe it would be most > helpful if you > >>> could quantify the differences (are they on the order of .01%, > 1%, or > >>> 10%?), and report on how exactly you have made sure that the > error is > >>> only in the statistics steps (are these datasets identical, or > >>> preprocessed identically in the different versions, or...). This may > >>> also help to narrow it down to a real glitch or rounding > differences or > >>> whatever else. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Marko > >>> > >>> Verónica GarcÃa wrote: > >>>> Dear SPM experts, > >>>> > >>>> Which is the most appropriate version of MATLAB when using SPM12 > >>>> v6685? I am asking that question because we are comparing a set > of PET > >>>> images using a Flexible Factorial design (basic models) and the > >>>> results are not the same if we use MATLAB R2013a, MATLAB R2015a or > >>>> MATLAB R2016b. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for any help you can provide. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> > >>>> Verónica GarcÃa Vázquez > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Guillaume Flandin, PhD > >> Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging > >> University College London > >> 12 Queen Square > >> London WC1N 3BG > > -- > Guillaume Flandin, PhD > Wellcome Trust Centre for NeuroimagingÜ_˜Ö& |