Hi Anderson,
Thanks for your help... Others points to clarify :
1) In the PALM command below, you suggested to set the output as -logp instead of -save1-p, why?
I'm asking this because I'm accustomed in using 1-p result with randomise... What does -logp bring more?
palm -i My_Mod_Merg.nii -d
design.mat -t design.c on -m My_Mask.nii -ebdesign.grp -T -n 5000 -logp -nouncorrected -approx tail -corrcon -o Myresults
2) When building both the between-subject and within-subject designs with FEAT GUI as we discussed, I received a warning message (see attached)...
3)
> It is possible. Either use a separate design with only these timepoints (e.g. t2 for all subjects, ignoring the other timepoints, and then doing a simple, non-paired, two-sample t-test),
> or include in the between-subject design additional EVs that effectively remove the other timepoints (that is, EVs full of zeroes, except for the scan that is to be removed; one such
> EV per scan).
Hummm... This is not simpler to guess...
To turn the question another way round, how could look the between-subject design If I only want to compare the 4 pair-wises using the second strategy? Ex:
- t1 > t1 (G2>G1, for t1)
- t2 > t2 (G2>G1, for t2)
- t3 > t3 (G2>G1, for t3)
- t4 > t4 (G2>G1, for t4)
I need to compare this as the my second group is using as the control of the first group
palm -i data_t1.nii.gz -i data_t2.nii.gz -i data_t3.nii.gz -i data_t4.nii.gz -d design.mat -t design.con -corrmod -corrcon [... other options ...]
palm -i data_t1.nii.gz -i data_t2.nii.gz -i data_t3.nii.gz -i data_t4.nii.gz -d design1.mat -d design2.mat -d design3.mat -d design4.mat -t design.con -designperinput -corrmod -corrcon [... other options ...]
Thanks in advance,
Arsene