 |
 |
Hi, but wasn't the question whether uncorrected *cluster-level* p-values can be higher than corrected cluster-level ones? I think the culprit here may be in the ROI/SVC approach, which may mess with the smoothness estimation, depending on how it is done. Perhaps you, Sara, could provide some more details about how you set up your analyses? Cheers Marko MCLAREN, Donald wrote: > Yes. The cluster statistics are always weaker than the individual voxel > significance. I prefer to look at the cluster significance as I don't > believe that the brain would only have differential > activity/connectivity/volume/etc. in a single isolated voxel. > > 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 Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Sara Garofalo <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have some (supposedly) strange results regarding an ROI analysis > using small volume correction. When looking at cluster-level > statistics the _uncorrected_ p-value is _not significant_ (e.g., > p=.12), while the FEW _corrected_ p-value is _significant_ (e.g., > p=.001). Does that make any sense? > > Is it more correct to only look at peak-level statistics? > > Many many thanks, > > Sara > > -- ____________________________________________________ PD Dr. med. Marko Wilke Facharzt für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin Leiter, Experimentelle Pädiatrische Neurobildgebung Universitäts-Kinderklinik Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie) Marko Wilke, MD, PhD Pediatrician Head, Experimental Pediatric Neuroimaging University Children's Hospital Dept. III (Pediatric Neurology) Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1 D - 72076 Tübingen, Germany Tel. +49 7071 29-83416 Fax +49 7071 29-5473 [log in to unmask] http://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/kinder/epn/ ____________________________________________________