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  May 2009

SPM May 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Baseline differences between groups

From:

Olga Prilipko <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Olga Prilipko <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 May 2009 11:33:37 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (60 lines)

Dear Donald, 

Thank you very much for your reply. I am posting the conversation to the list again since someone else might have a similar question.
So, if I understood you correctly, you suggest to use the fixation periods as a new baseline? The problem here is similar to what I have with the 0-back baseline though - if the fixation activation is different (for ex if the general arousal of the 2 groups is different), there is then no way to demonstrate that, correct? Would comparing the betas values for a given condition between groups give any additional information (f ex betas for 0back (grA) vs betas for 0back(grB)?
Thank you very much!

Olga


----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald MCLAREN" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Olga Prilipko" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:22:27 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: Re: [SPM] Baseline differences between groups

1- is an implicit comparison against fixation, so in that sense it
does remove the intersubject variability. Of course, if you find
differences here, are those due to difference in 1- or the fixation
state. Since BOLD is relative, one can not asses group differences in
terms of one-state or another; only that one or both states of the
subtraction are different between groups.


On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Olga Prilipko <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear SPMers,
>
> I would very much appreciate help on the following problem:
> I am comparing 2 groups of subjects on an n-back task. Both groups performed 0-, 1-, 2- and 3-back conditions. I use 0-back as baseline and compare the groups with 2 -sample t-test for 1>0(grA) vs 1>0 (grB), 2>0(grA) vs 2>0(grB) etc
> However, I suspect that the baseline condition activation(0-back) is very different between the 2 groups, which would make my 2-sample ttests difficult to interpret..
> I did a "direct" comparison 1-back(grA) vs 1-back(gr B) etc, but of course it does not remove the intersubject/session variability and it is thus difficult to know which differences are relevant.
> Does anyone have an idea for testing for differences between the baselines?
> Thank you very much!
>
> Olga
>



-- 
Best Regards, Donald McLaren
=====================
D.G. McLaren
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Neuroscience Training Program
Office: (608) 265-9672
Lab: (608) 256-1901 ext 12914
=====================
This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain
PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient
or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use,
disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please
immediately notify the sender via telephone at (608) 265-9672 or
email.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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