 |
 |
Any comments? Sorry to insist... Best, Miguel On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Miguel Burgaleta < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > Yes, that was exactly my point: those pmaps with surviving voxels at P < > 0.05 (FWE-corrected) only showed surviving voxels with FDR when using huge Q > values (like 0.6 or so) > > Thanks, > Miguel > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Michael Harms <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Hi Miguel, >> I'll let someone else comment on the FDR vs. FWE issue, but a q value of >> 0.6 is way high. At q=0.6, 60% of the voxels with p-values less than >> the determined threshold would be expected to be false-positives voxels. >> q-values of 0.05, or perhaps 0.1, are much more reasonable. >> >> cheers, >> -MH >> >> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:40 +0100, Miguel Burgaleta wrote: >> > >> > Hi FSLers (and more specifically T. Nichols, perhaps?), >> > >> > >> > I am running into a strange result when using FDR to correct my >> > *vox_p* output from TBSS. I get surviving voxels with FWE (P<0.05), >> > but not with FDR. This happens with all of my p-maps. Does this make >> > sense? I have found a couple of unanswered posts pointing in the same >> > direction. >> > >> > >> > I am feeding FDR with the same mask that I used in randomise (just in >> > case it matters). Played around with the -q threshold and started >> > getting non-zero answer when setting -q 0.6 or above... >> > >> > >> > Thanks in advance for any comments, >> > Miguel >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >