Nadine,
> Hello! I have the same problem than previously reported in 2002 (see
> mail below). I would appreciate any advice how to handle the problem.
>
>>> We have been examining the mask.img produced from a second level
>>> random effects analysis (one-sample t-test) across 14 subjects.
>>> We find it a bit alarming to see that the mask.img falls well
>>> within the perimeter of the MNI template brains in all 3
>>> dimensions.
I'm afraid there isn't much to add to the original thread; take a look
at the original message
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind02&L=SPM&P=107309
and all of the responses. In particular, see Dan's response about
checkign for dud scans due to movement.
One other idea, if you smooth your contrast images *or* if
you spatially normalize contrast images (done if intrasubject analyses
are done in subject space instead of atlas space), then you could be
experiencing NaN problems. If you either smooth or interpolate
contrast images you need to change NaN's to zero. For more on that
see
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind03&L=SPM&P=R232392
-Tom
-- Thomas Nichols -------------------- Department of Biostatistics
http://www.sph.umich.edu/~nichols University of Michigan
[log in to unmask] 1420 Washington Heights
-------------------------------------- Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029
