 |
 |
Dear Anderson, Thank you for the explanations! I really appreciate it. One further question: I was also wondering, for tractography data, if I am expecting clusters that are similar in size and extent to tracts, that a cluster correction is better or is it better to stick to the voxel-wise correction? Thanks again! Best, John On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Anderson M. Winkler wrote: > Hi Jake, > > 1. Almost certainly not independent, but it doesn't matter, because there is no need to assume independence with randomise. The spatial dependence, if any, is taken into account implicitly. > > 2. They aren't stringent, they are correct. These are the values that should be used in general, and this a recommendation. > > All the best! > > Anderson > > > > 2013/5/29 Jake <[log in to unmask]> > Dear Saad and FSL, > > I was wondering if you can help me with what might be basic learning questions, but after reading the boards and the FSL documentation it's still confusing to me. I've been researching the type of correction I should use for the outputs of randomise, using probtrackx data. (Study design is tractography comparison between two groups.) > > I'm wanting to correct my stats for multiple comparisons but two things are on my mind: > > 1- are voxels really independent? (does it matter, and are conventional MRI corrections appropriate?) > 2- the "corrp" stat output from randomise seem stringent.. How do you recommend I should correct? > > I seem to be getting high raw t-stats but am unsure how to procede.... > > Thanks in advance for your time and help!!! > > Best, > Jake > The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.