 |
 |
Hi Derek, I don't know what do you mean by "was able to obtain the correlations", and I'm not completely sure either about what you mean by "used this ROI to do regression". If what you did was to get some sort of average for each subject for the regions that survived the High task, and used this as an additional confound for the Low task analysis, yes, it is possible to find different results, and regions that were originally not significant may become so. It's fine. But if you did something different than what I understood from your description, please, try to clarify a bit what was done. Thanks. All the best, Anderson 2014-04-09 21:35 GMT+01:00 Derek Archer <[log in to unmask]>: > Hello, > > I have run two difference randomise analyses, in which I am looking at a > "Low" task and a "High" task. From my analysis, I found 3 significant > clusters in the high task. However, I have found 0 clusters that are > significant in the low task. > > I then did an ROI analysis on the clusters from the High task, and was > able to obtain the correlations that were found in the randomise analysis. > Additionally, I used this ROI analysis to do regression with the Low task. > When I did this, I found that these were significant as well. Is there a > reason why I would get significant correlations this way but not in > randomise for the Low task? > > Thanks, > Derek Archer >