Hi Steve,
I read the previous post on FSL and the spatial smoothness estimation as
the reason for the different p-values, as compared to the FEAT output.
I'd like to know if the same applies to this case:
Trying to compare my current dataset with previous ones I ran easythresh
on a zstat image (in its first form e.g. > easythresh zstat1 mask Z.z
P.pp background output ) varying the cluster thresholding so to match my
previous analyses. However, having read the previous posts on the topic
I also ran one easythresh using the same Z and p cluster thresholding
values as those employed in the full FLAME2 analysis (from which the
zstat1 is taken).
I was expecting to just see different p-values, however it turns out
that in the easythresh output, not only I get all the clusters that I
get in FEAT, but I also see additional activations.
I'm now uncertain on 2 points:
1) How do I interpret the additional activations? Should I consider them
as real or as springing from the different algorithm used in easythresh?)
2) Is indeed easythresh meant to provide a quick way to look at data at
different thresholds without having to re run a full analysis (which
with FLAME2 here takes multiple days...)
Could I get some thoughts on the point please?
all the best
martin
--
“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice, “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!”
[Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland]
----------------------------------------
Martin M Monti, PhD
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
15 Chaucer Road
Cambridge, CB2 7EF
Off. +44 (0) 1223 273646
www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mm03
----------------------------------------
|