Hi Anderson,
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
I am still curious though to hear your thoughts on the 2 other possibilities/issues that I raised with regard to running 3 separate ROI analyses and correcting for that:
1) I know that the simplest solution is probably the classical bonferroni correction of the corrected-tfce maps (0.05/3=0.016). However, these 3 analyses are not fully independent, at least, I am pretty sure that FA values in these tracts will correlate across participants. So, would a bonferroni correction modified/adjusted for the intercorrelation between FA in these tracts be a more accurate option? And would this be a valid approach?
2) Also, is it correct that number of ROI's becomes less of an issue when applying FDR correction? In other word, as long as the individual uncorrected-tfce-tstat maps pass FDR (q=0.05) it doesn't matter how many ROI's are tested/selected? I have come across some posts on this forum and elsewhere that suggest this.
Would be great to hear your thoughts on this.
Many thanks for your input & effort!!
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=FSL&A=1
|