Screenshot from Matlab 2016b

On 5 October 2016 at 12:27, Verónica García <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Marko and Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for your emails. We used the same preprocessed dataset as an
> input for the statistics step (flexible factorial) in all cases
> (MATLAB R2013a, MATLAB R2015a and MATLAB R2016b). I have attached the
> screenshots of the results.
>
> The significant voxels are located in a small volume within the brain
> because the image dataset doesn´t belong to human beings.
>
> Looking at the results, you can see for example:
>
> 1) Matlab R2013a: p(set-level) = 0.782 and the voxels of the
> cluster-level are 1052 in total.
> 2) Matlab R2015a: p(set-level) = 0.789 and the voxels of the
> cluster-level are 1137 in total. So the difference compared to Matlab
> R2013a is 0.9% in p(set-level) and 8.1% in number of voxels.
> 3) Matlab R2016b: p(set-level) = 0.903 and the voxels of the
> cluster-level are 888 in total. So the difference compared to Matlab
> R2013a is 15.5% in p(set-level) and 15.6% in number of voxels.
>
>
> Guillaume, tell me if it is really necessary to send you the copy of
> the folders containing the SPM.mat because I am not be sure if I am
> allowed to do that.
>
> Just in case it is important, Matlab was installed using its default
> settings. I didn´t remove any Matlab toolbox from the default Matlab
> installation list.
>
> Best regards!
>
> Verónica
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 5 October 2016 at 11:24, Guillaume Flandin <[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 García 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 García Vázquez
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Guillaume Flandin, PhD
>>> Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging
>>> University College London
>>> 12 Queen Square
>>> London WC1N 3BG
>>
>>
>>