Hello Amanda,

Do these “holes” in the skeleton for <blah>_tfce_tstat* correspond to voxels where the corresponding “raw” t-stat, <blah>_tstat*, is negative? This would be expected from how the TFCE scores are calculated, and so the 0’s in the *p* images would be correctly inferred.

Kind Regards

Matthew

--------------------------------
Dr Matthew Webster
FMRIB Centre 
John Radcliffe Hospital
University of Oxford

On 3 Aug 2022, at 17:41, Amanda Rodrigue <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello again,
I altered my design file as follows (demeaned sex-3 and age-4 and left the grouping variable 1/2 alone):

design.mat
/NumWaves 4
/NumPoints 413
/Matrix
0 1 -0.525423729 13.75544794
1 0 -0.525423729 16.75544794
1 0 -0.525423729 9.755447942
1 0 0.474576271 -12.24455206
1 0 -0.525423729 9.755447942
1 0 -0.525423729 -10.24455206 ....

design.con
/NumWaves 4
/NumPoints 6
/Matrix
1 -1 0 0
-1 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 -1 0   
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 -1

For contrasts 2 and 5 (although I don't expect many significant differences when thresholding between .95-1), it still appears that the _tfce_tstat*, tfce_p_tstat*, and the _tfce_corrp_tstat* associated with those contrasts do not have values allocated to the whole skeleton regardless of what threshold I set. The original _tstat file does appear to have a value for all voxels in the skeleton. Is this correct?

Thanks,
Amanda

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FSL&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/FSL, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

---

To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=FSL&A=1