JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  September 2007

SPM September 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: SVC

From:

Marko Wilke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Marko Wilke <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:39:11 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

Hi Mahinda,

> Could someone clarify the following for me ?

Not sure, it is actually more a question I have :)

> Following from the recent SVC discussion I was under the impression that 
> the SVC when applied only includes those voxels (within whatever volume 
> you have defined) that were initially activated at the previously chosen 
> uncorrected threshold.  In which case the value chosen for this 
> threshold should dictate the number of voxels within the region where 
> the SVC is applied and therefore also the resulting p value for the 
> analysis.  However, I find that regardless of the initial threshold 
> chosen (ie be it 0.01 uncorrected or 0.99 uncorrected) the resulting p 
> value when the SVC is applied (and the same region is used) is the 
> same.  This would suggest that a small volume correction includes all 
> those voxels within the pre-defined area that one is analysing 
> regardless of what threshold was originally chosen for the uncorrected 
> analysis.  Is this is correct, because reading the emails from August on 
> this subject, I did not think this was the case.

Without remembering what the details of this exchange were, I would 
intuitively expect the behavior you described.

The rationale for a small volume correction, to me, always was that "I 
expect activation within a certain region", as defined by the search 
volume. Therefore, the correction for multiple comparisons should take 
into account the volume of this region, and not of activation seen 
within this region. I may be wrong but taking only the activated voxels 
of a prior analysis would be post-hoc, which really is not what "having 
an a priori hypothesis about the region of activation" would be about. 
Right ?

Also, if you define a search region for a small volume correction, it 
really does not matter if there were activated voxels in the first place 
as they may only become significant after SVC, which is perfectly fine 
(and likely what most people are using it for :) I would see no good 
rationale for excluding voxels within the search volume on the basis of 
an analysis that you are not interested in anyway (as it corrected for 
the whole brain), but there may be factors involved that I do not see 
(anyone: are there?). This is just my take on things which may be 
perfectly wrong, but perhaps it stimulates somone who actually knows it 
to correct me.

Best,
Marko
-- 
=====================================================================
Marko Wilke                                            (Dr.med./M.D.)
                 [log in to unmask]

Universitäts-Kinderklinik              University Children's Hospital
Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie)             Dept. III (Pediatric neurology)
             Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1, D - 72076 Tübingen
Tel.: (+49) 07071 29-83416                   Fax: (+49) 07071 29-5473
=====================================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager