Hi Rozanna,

I don't think there were changes that would cause such differences, so I don't know what may have happened, but nonetheless, happy you found now the results as you were expecting.

All the best,

Anderson

On 22 April 2014 16:03, Rozanna Meijboom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Anderson,

Thank you for your reply!

I understand that that's true, but the odd thing about this analysis was that earlier it had given me clear DMN activation patterns and now refused to give me such patterns.
I realized yesterday that I ran randomize using the latest version of FSL whereas my previous analyses have been done using FSL 4.1.9. and my 4D component file also came from the dual regression of that FSL version.
I ran randomize again today (using the exact same command line), now using FSL4.1.9., and now I do get normal DMN activation patterns.

Is there a big difference between the two randomize scripts (new vs old)? Or is it not wise to give a 4D dual regression file created by FSL 4.1.9. as input in the randomization script of the new version?

Thanks again!

Rozanna