 |
 |
Hi Giang-Chau, The TFCE results are already FWE corrected. Unless you looked into the uncorrected, something should not be done. All the best, Anderson On 29 September 2016 at 03:21, Giang-Chau Ngo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Anderson, > > Thank you for your quick answer! I understand now. > Do you think the FWE correction could lead to some differences too since > the number of voxels included are different? > > Thanks! > > All the best, > > Giang-Chau > > 2016-09-28 1:51 GMT-05:00 Anderson M. Winkler <[log in to unmask]>: > >> Hi Giang-Chau, >> >> The support region of the TFCE (see the original paper >> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061>) depends on the >> size of the region one is looking at, which here depends on the FA >> threshold, so the results can differ. >> >> All the best, >> >> Anderson >> >> >> On 27 September 2016 at 21:52, Giang-Chau <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Dear FSL experts, >>> >>> I have two infants DTI data set and I have run TBSS + randomise (with >>> TFCE) analysis using different FA thresholds (0.1, 0.15, 0.2) therefore >>> different masks. >>> When looking at the corrected p-value map, I have noticed that some >>> tracts appear significantly (p<0.05) different when using a FA=0.02 but are >>> not when using=0.1 and vice versa. Are the differences in p-value between >>> the different thresholds resulting from the correction of the multiple >>> comparison? >>> >>> Thank you very much for your time and help! >>> >>> Giang-Chau >>> >> >> >