Dear folks:
When looking at the output from the FEAT report, we are left with a
little ambiguity on how to interpret the full vs. th partial model fits.
In a paradigm involving two interleaved off-on-off tasks, we set up the
design matrix for each task individually, then select contrasts of:
EV1 EV2
C1 1 0
C2 0 1
expecting to see maps for each EV independently. The maps, in fact, seem
to be concordant with this design. The time course plots, however, are
confusing in that that "partial model fit" seems to conform to our
expectations in setting this up, but the full model fit seems to include
parameter weights from both EVs. If this is the case:
1. why would this be the FSL default behavior
2. when FEAT selects best pixel and cluster averages, is it doing so on
the basis of both EV's or only one (the latter, we hope and presume)
thanks.
Zrinka Bilusic-Vezmar & Mark Cohen
UCLA Brain Mapping
660 Charles Young Drive South
Los Angeles, CA 90095
310-825-1208
[log in to unmask]
www.brainmapping.org
