 |
 |
There are quite different: (1) ROI Analysis - this typically means that you select your ROI, extract the data, and then run the statistics on the ROI mean/eigenvalues. (2) SVC Analysis - this is a voxel-wise analysis within a restricted area of the brain. The maps don't change, but the corrected p-values will change because you have restricted the search region. With an ROI analysis, you can test multiple ROIs. With SVC, you have to test all regions simultaneously or correct for the number of times you perform an SVC. The math underlying SVC is the same as the whole brain analysis, except the search volume is reduced. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Donald McLaren ================= D.G. McLaren, Ph.D. Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA Website: http://www.martinos.org/~mclaren Office: (773) 406-2464 ===================== This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773) 406-2464 or email. On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Andy Yeung <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I've been using ROI analysis for fMRI data for a while, to search for only > regions of interest supported by a priori hypothesis or data. > But SPM also has another button: 'SVC', which to me seems like of the same > logic underneath. May I know what their differences are? > Thanks a lot. > > Best, > Andy >