Lilly -
You could try this article:
Friston, K.J., Rotsthein, P., Geng, J.J., Sterzer, P. & Henson, R.N.
(2006). A critique of functional localizers. /Neuroimage, 30/, 1077-1087.
(see also reply by Saxe et al, 2006, and reply to Saxe et al by Friston
& Henson, 2006). The ROI vs SVC issue is closely related to this
functional localiser debate.
Rik
PS Note also that the recommendation by Friston & Henson (2006) to use
orthogonal contrasts to define a mask for SVC was in the context of
2nd-level factorial designs; as Kriegeskorte et al (2009) point out in
their recent "double dipping" paper, this should be qualified by
"balanced" factorial designs (ie where X'X=kI in addition to c'c=0),
which is normally the case for fully repeated-measures designs.
> All:
>
> I need to respond to a reviewer who complains about our having used a
> SVC analysis rather than an ROI (averaged) analysis. I've seen bits
> and pieces of responses as to the conceptual advantages of SVC as
> compared to ROI analyses, but never a comprehensive justification.
> I'm thinking that surely one must exist, right, since SPM5 onward
> doesn't even support ROI analyses anymore?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Lilly
>
>
> --
> Lilianne R. Mujica-Parodi, Ph.D.
> Director, LSEC
> Dept of Biomedical Engineering
> Dept of Psychiatry
> Stony Brook University
> Health Sciences Center T18
> Stony Brook, NY 11794
> office: 631-444-9993
> lab: 631-444-7868, 631-444-9232
> http://lsec.bme.stonybrook.edu/Site/Welcome.html
>
>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------
DR RICHARD HENSON
MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit
15 Chaucer Road
Cambridge, CB2 7EF
England
EMAIL: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/rik.henson/personal
TEL +44 (0)1223 355 294 x522
FAX +44 (0)1223 359 062
MOB +44 (0)794 1377 345
-------------------------------------------------------
|