Great, thanks Eugene and David. I appreciate your responses.

If I may be so BOLD (had to throw in a pun) as to ask a follow up question; are these two methods equivalent? Or is one more valid than the other?

Thanks again,

Bryson

Hi Bryson,

Yes, you could average the dr_stage2 output from the runs/sessions. I posted some code to help with this procedure in this thread:

JISCMail - FSL Archive - Re: NETWORK INTEGRATION SCORE (https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=FSL;6b8d55bf.1109)

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

David

On Nov 8, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Bryson Dietz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello,

I just have a question regarding my resting-state analysis (3 runs, single-session, 6 subjects (for each group), 2 groups). Initially I made my GLM, essentially the same as mentioned below (I pasted the image from the link below in this email).

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1010&L=fsl&F=&S=&P=159920

Upon reading his response from Stephen Smith,

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1010&L=fsl&F=&S=&P=163366

It appears that this analysis ignores variance between subjects. In the above link Stephen mentions "Hence I would recommend just averaging the 3 sessions' images (output by the dual regression) for each subject"

I would just like to clarify, does Stephen mean to average the sessions (in my case runs) output from the dual-regression run from the above link (with the GLM shown below)? Also, I am assuming that I can simply exchange sessions with runs.

I hope that I have made my question clear!

Thanks,

Bryson