Hello Donald,

Thank you for your very informative answer (as usual)!

Yes, a (Bonferroni) correction dependent on the number of post-hoc contrasts is a must. My problem with small volume correction is that it appears to focus on a cluster of specified size and shape centered on a maximum-effect voxel of choice. I would instead like to correct for the entire mask where I find a significant F statistic. Wouldn't it make sense to recompute the smoothness, and FWE corrections, by focusing only on the mask where a significant F was observed?

Cheers,

         Bruno

Sent from iPad

On 2012-02-03, at 7:04 PM, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Bruno,

Here are some thoughts:
(1) You could use small-volume correction -- this will correct for regions that were significant. This method uses the pooled error term and spatial smoothness of the data to your advantage.

(2) A statistician might say you should correct for the number of post-hoc tests, but people have argued that since you have many more brain voxels that comparisons, correcting for tests isn't necessary. However, I still think you need to correct for the number of tests.

(3) If we combine these two thoughts. For regions that are significant, we want assess what are the pair-wise differences. Since we are only testing those regions, it makes sense to use small-volume corrections (+correcting for the number of tests). If you use a cluster extent and cluster p-value, you could use any number of mutliple-comparisons for correcting for the number of tests. I never got a good answer to whether the voxel p-values should be corrected for the number of tests or if the clusters p-values should be corrected for the number of tests. Doing voxel correction changes the results.


Best Regards, Donald McLaren
=================
D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and
Harvard Medical School
Office: (773) 406-2464
=====================
This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED
HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773)
406-2464 or email.



On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Bruno L. Giordano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello,

I am analyzing a factorial design. After FWE correction, I obtained a significant main effect of a 3-levels factor (F test). I would like to run some post-hoc contrasts within the significant-F region (a few clusters), to test for pairwise differences between the various levels of the design factor.

My question: is it appropriate to carry out the post-hoc contrast by using the same FWE correction (computed considering the entire brain) when my interest is in a rather restricted area? Don't I run the risk of being too conservative and/or imprecise?

Can someone please suggest the standard approach in this case? Should one re-estimate the proper FWE correction by re-running the factorial model within the regions of interest?

Cheers,

       Bruno