 |
 |
Hi, On 14 Feb 2008, at 15:05, Vishwadeep Ahluwalia wrote: > Hi Christian, > Thanks for the clarification. About the TICA maps, I expect certain > primary > sensory areas to have a different timecourse(less width of response) > than > the secondary areas. What i got is primary and secondary areas > activated in > the same spatial map for a timecourse that looked more like a > secondary area > timecourse. This makes sense, since you said its averaged over all > active > voxels in a spatial map. However, what do you suggest i should do, > inorder to > maybe segregate the spatial map of primary and secondary areas(eg: > will > increasing dimensionality help?) Yes, it is worth trying inceasing the dimensionality to see if that helps split the areas. > or is it possible to extract timecourses of > individual areas within this particular spatial map(i.e without > averaging > the time courses or in other words can i look at average time course > in a > particular area using an ROI,like in fslmeants or featquery) Yes, for such a hypothesis-driven analysis you should run FEAT and then Featquery to ask about the differentiation, (as well as seeing what MELODIC gives). Cheers. > > Thanks > -vish > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717) [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------