Hi Anderson, 

Many thanks for your reply. I have uploaded the input data and design/contrasts that correspond to the command line below as requested. This command line (and variants thereof) is run for all designs/contrasts of interest and across the different DTI-metrics (dependent on input -i). The block.csv file includes information about the different sites, in response to our earlier correspondence about controlling for site effects (this prompted our use of PALM - happy to pass on our email exchange). I have also uploaded the two different output files I refer to in my previous query - one TFCE-FWE corrected and the other VOX-FWE corrected. 

palm -i all_FA_skeletonised.nii -m mean_FA_skeleton_mask.nii -d design_two_sample_ttest_IQ_Age.mat -t design_two_sample_ttest_IQ_Age.con -eb block.csv -vg auto -n 5000 -T -C 3.1 -fdr -o two_sample_fa_iq_age -logp

It would be very useful to know if the command line above is appropriate. We are comparing two different groups (patients vs controls) so very simple design matrix (N= 300) with IQ and Age included as covariates of no interest. 

Best wishes
Jack





From: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Anderson M. Winkler [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 January 2017 13:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FSL] PALM Output: vox_vstat output

Hi Jack,

Could you upload input data, design/contrasts, and let me know the command line used? You should have just received an automated email with instructions.

Thanks.

All the best,

Anderson


On 20 January 2017 at 11:06, Jack Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Experts, Dear Anderson,

I have a query regarding the PALM output. Namely, in a couple of instances we see sub-threshold (<1.3) differences for TFCE FWEP output but significant voxels in the VOX_VSTAT FWEP output. Am I right in thinking that this output represents a voxel-by-voxel comparison across the skeleton and so is 1) more lenient than the TFCE output following permutation testing and 2) should not be reported as meaningful in our paper?

Many thanks
Jack