 |
 |
Thanks alot for the responses; > To make sure I understood it correctly, I made map with con images for > each group separately for the interested contrast at 0.0001, then use the > functions that you mentioned and then use the output in the group level > analysis as an explicit mask. is that the way it should be done? You don't need any group analysis as you've already defined the conjunction using imcalc. If you want to ask if the groups are differently active in areas that they are both significant, then you'd need to use imcalc again to make the conjunction map only show values of 3 (e.g. i1>2.5). > If I do > this can I write in my paper I use conjunction analysis or I should use the > term of mask? > If you use a conjunction, say you use a conjunction. If you use a mask, say you used a mask and state how the mask was defined. > To follow up, what are the differences between the way that you explained > for the conjunction analysis and the way of selecting different contrasts > and selecting conjunction analysis while you want to define contrast (as it > asks for 'null hypo. to assess? conjunction, global and intermed ) with > the way that you suggest? > My way is commonly refered to as the 'logical AND'. It requires all conditions to be significant. The other ways are different. I'd suggest reading the papers on the conjunction null by Friston and Nichols. > > Thanks again for your helpful responses > -- > ********************** > Maryam Ziaei > PhD Student > Department of Psychology (Cognitive Science) > Stockholm University > Tel: +46-8-163845 > Fax: +46-8-159342 > Alternative Email: [log in to unmask] >