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 2008

SPM September 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: design problem

From:

Thilo Kellermann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Thilo Kellermann <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:59:24 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (184 lines)

Dear Julie,

entering more than one covariate (no matter if of interest or not) might 
become problematic. It is absolutely not a problem to use a multiple 
regressions model when you have a general question like: How well can my 
regressors predict the BOLD contrast? In this case all of your regressors 
would be of interest and you may be able to answer your quesiton with a 
multiple regression and a "suitable" F-contrast (so called 
"effects-of-interest").

In any case where you want to disentangle somehow the effects of different 
regressors, you should check if regressors are correlated. Suppose you have - 
as you mentioned in your mail - a variable A of interest and another variable 
B that should serve as covariate of no interest. If both variables correlate 
perfectly with each other, any contrast testing one of the variables alone 
(either [1 0], [0 1]) leads to a null result. Null results might of course be 
"true" but in this case results are not interpretable. If both variables are 
orthogonal (correlation exactly zero), you have no problems at all and 
contrasts are interpretable.

The absolute values of correlations are of course in the range between >0 and 
<1 (at least in most cases) and usually one assumes A and B to be independent 
and any departure from a null-correlation is random and therefore low. It is 
up to you to decide how low is low enough, but the higher the (absolute) 
correlation of A and B, the less would be the variance in the BOLD contrast 
accounted for by A (A variable of interest, B covariate). But in any case 
such a model gives you an answer to the question: How much variance in the 
BOLD contrast can be explained by A which can not be explained by B?

Hope this helps...
Thilo

On Tuesday 23 September 2008 18:29, Julie McEntee wrote:
> I have a question re: design when there are both covariates of "interest"
> AND of "no interest". For ex., in this particular experiment, if one had
> reason to believe number of years of tobacco use may contribute to BOLD
> contrast (post-pre treatment) and wanted to determine the effect of TD that
> cannot be explained by length of tobacco use. Would you include both (i.e.,
> TD and years of use) in a multiple regression, to make sure years of use is
> not related to BOLD contrast, or can you include it in a regression as a
> covariate (of no interest)?
>
> Thanks for anyone's thoughts-
>
> Julie
>
> Julie E. McEntee, M.A., C.C.R.P.
> Senior Research Program Coordinator
> Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
> Division of Psychiatric Neuroimaging
> Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
> 600 N. Wolfe St./ Phipps 300 (office: room 317)
> Baltimore, MD 21287
> Phone: 410-502-0468
> Fax: 410-614-3676
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Thilo Kellermann
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SPM] design problem
>
> Dear Vlad,
>
> as far as I understand covariates and paired t-tests, it does not make much
> sense to include a covariate per subject unless you have two different
> assessments of that covariate for each time point (pre and post drug
> treatment). Put differently, a paired t-test is the same as testing the
> difference of pre and post against zero, which is the same as a one sample
> t-test. When you then include the covariate and this does not change from
> pre
> to post within each subject, then you would enter a column of zeros as
> covariate, which his not what you want.
>
> By the way, including TD as a covariate in a one sample t-test for
> instance,
>
> does not show you the impact of TD on the BOLD contrast. It would show you
> where in the brain the BOLD contrast deviates from zero, which canNOT be
> explained by TD. Covariates are always of no interest.
>
> What you can do is to calculate a simple regression, which is actually the
> way
> how calculate "covariates of interest". When you have only one TD value per
> subject you can define three simple regressions:
> 1) TD and pre-treatment scan
> 2) TD and post-treatment scan
> 3) TD and difference of pre- and post-treatment scans (using e.g. imcalc)
>
> The third one would be the model you want to examine.
>
> In case you have different TD values for pre- and post-scans you can do
> more
>
> or less the same:
> 1) TDpre and pre-scans
> 2) TDpost and post-scans
> 3) TDpost-TDpre and (post-scans)-(pre-scans)
>
> Good luck,
> Thilo
>
> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 15:19, Vlad Kushnir wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have encountered a problem and would greatly appreciate some direction
>
> in
>
> > resolving it.
> >
> >
> > In my study design there are two drug conditions, Pre and Post-drug
> > scans. During each scan subjects are presented with a task that shows
>
> drug-related
>
> > and neutral cues, as well as a rest fixation cross in a blocked design.
> > As I have one subject group and the subjects vary in their level of
> > tobacco dependence (TD), my goal is to create a model that examines how
> > TD influences differential activation between the two scan sessions.
> > Therefore, in essence I would like to create a paired-samples t-test with
> > TD as a covariate of interest.
> >
> >
> > So far I have tried the following:
> >
> > To best look at how drug cues elicit brain activation in my population of
> > interest, for every subject during each of the two scans, I have created
> > a 1st level drug cue > neutral cue contrast. These contrasts were later
>
> taken
>
> > into a 2nd level paired t-test design (with TD as a covariate for each
> > pair), however the job would not compute. I'm wondering if there is a way
> > to look at the effect of TD on the difference between the two scans, or
> > as a covariate of interest.
> >
> > Then I tried creating a full factorial design with one factor (Drug) that
> > has two levels (pre and post). There was no independence between the two
> > levels. TD was the covariate, but it was entered twice repeatedly, once
>
> for
>
> > the pre-drug level and once for the post-drug. I am not sure if this is
>
> the
>
> > most appropriate design.
> >
> > In an alternative method, I took every subject's pre and post drug scans
> > into 1st level and created a drug cue pre > drug cue post (and vice
> > versa) contrast. I then took these contrast images into a 2nd level
> > multiple regression analysis, where TD was the covariate. I am also not
> > sure if
>
> this
>
> > is the most appropriate design, especially since neutral cues are not
>
> taken
>
> > into context.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> >
> > Vlad Kushnir

-- 
Thilo Kellermann
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
RWTH Aachen University
Pauwelsstr. 30
52074 Aachen
Tel.: +49 (0)241 / 8089977
Fax.: +49 (0)241 / 8082401
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
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


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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