 |
 |
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Ben Becker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear SPMers, > > we used a blocked design fmri-paradigm to investigate intervention effects > in a single-subject. The patient was scanned twice (t1 & t2); the design > incorporated 3 social (s1, s2, s3) and a non-social control condition (c). > To investigate intervention effects regarding the specific effects on > social stimuli I’d like to use the following design: > > 1) First level design with two sessions & the following conditions: > > s1(t1) s2(t1) s3(t1) c(t1) s1(t2) s2(t2) s3(t2) c(t2) > > Would the following t-contrast reveal the stronger activity at > t1 specific to social stimuli: > 1/3 1/3 1/3 -1 -1/3 -1/3 -1/3 1 ? > No. The contrast tests the difference of social-non-social between t1 and t2. The test says nothing about the difference only being in the social conditions. Secondly, the word stronger coud be misleading. If social-nonsocial at t1 is zero and social-nonsocial is negative at time 2, then you'd get a positive effect. I try to use the word higher or larger. > > 2) If I would test a control group twice with the same paradigm: > could I use the above mentioned interaction contrast in a two-sample > t- test (according to rik henson’s comparing a single subject > against a group of controls)? > If you have the contrast above in a bunch of controls and then you have the same contrast for a single patient, then yes you could use his approach. Keep in mind that the results would represent a three-way interaction of stimuli*time*group. > > Thanks in advance & best regards > > Ben >