(1) Your interpretation, I would phrase it as: Pre-post differences in controls were greater with higher performance changes than in patients. **NOTE: I don't like to refer to difference as brain activation, but as differences or activated relative to X.
Excellent, thanks very much for this Donald! I ran some quick OLS models (will do the FLAME over the weekend):
1st model, includes only the 2 groups, ie patient (EV1 is the cope obtained from after-before) vs control (EV2: after-before)
contrast: patient [1 0] shows some differences
contrast control [0 1] is empty
contrast: patients - control [1 -1] shows some differences indicating that our patient group has higher activation after training compared to controls having received the same training.
2nd model, as 1st only added the difference in task performance (demeaned, after-before) as covariate in a single column:
contrast: patient [1 0] shows some differences in regions comparable to 1st model, though not as strong
contrast control [0 1] is empty
contrast: patients - control [1 -1 0] now shows no differences
contrast for difference in task performance [0 0 1] is blank as well
I am not sure what to learn from this, probably simply that after adjusting for task performance (maybe taking out the training effect in the actual scanning task which was a different one to the training-interestingly only in the patient group, so maybe something else)
3rd model, as 2nd only splitting the covariates (demeaned) into the respective (2) columns to test for interactions
contrast: patient>control [0 0 1 -1] is blank
contrast: patient<control [0 0 -1 1] shows some differences in regions with little overlap but more adjacent to patient contrast [1 0] from 2nd model
contrasts [1 0 0 0] and [1 -1 0 0] show some differences though, but I understand that they are not interpretable.
My laymans interpretation of the interaction in [0 0 -1 1] is that brain activation is stronger for controls (for the difference after-before) than for patients as differences in task performance (after-before) increase
One question:
As mentioned above, I understand that main effects shouldn't be interpreted when interactions are significant (model 3). But is it legitimate to interpret the results from the 1st and 2nd model knowing that there are interactions (3rd model).
Any comments on the above are very welcome!
Thanks again for pointing me into the right direction here!
All the best,
Torsten