Hi,
On 14 Feb 2008, at 15:05, Vishwadeep Ahluwalia wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> Thanks for the clarification. About the TICA maps, I expect certain
> primary
> sensory areas to have a different timecourse(less width of response)
> than
> the secondary areas. What i got is primary and secondary areas
> activated in
> the same spatial map for a timecourse that looked more like a
> secondary area
> timecourse. This makes sense, since you said its averaged over all
> active
> voxels in a spatial map. However, what do you suggest i should do,
> inorder to
> maybe segregate the spatial map of primary and secondary areas(eg:
> will
> increasing dimensionality help?)
Yes, it is worth trying inceasing the dimensionality to see if that
helps split the areas.
> or is it possible to extract timecourses of
> individual areas within this particular spatial map(i.e without
> averaging
> the time courses or in other words can i look at average time course
> in a
> particular area using an ROI,like in fslmeants or featquery)
Yes, for such a hypothesis-driven analysis you should run FEAT and
then Featquery to ask about the differentiation, (as well as seeing
what MELODIC gives).
Cheers.
>
> Thanks
> -vish
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre
FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
+44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
[log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|