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  November 2009

SPM November 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: two sessions analysis

From:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:22:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

Hi Marta

The problem is that the effect in which you are interested (right vs.
left ankle dorsiflexion) is also a difference between sessions.  By
modeling session effects (which is the right thing to do) (columns 3
and 4 of your design matrix), you essentially remove any overall
difference between sessions, making it difficult or impossible to pull
out differences in your conditions.  Put another way, your effects of
interest are confounded with session effects.

If you have a chance to change the design, you could consider one of
the following alternatives:

1) Have both conditions of interest in both sessions (i.e. alternate
left and right ankle movements within both sessions).  This way you
have the same number of events of each type but they are not related
to session effects.

2) Have some baseline condition you can compare the ankle dorsiflexion
to.  This is no doubt explained in more detail somewhere previously on
the list, but the idea is that it's possible to look at an interaction
across sessions, but not really main effects.  I.e.

Session 1: condition A and condition C
Session 2: condition B and condition C

contrast A > B is problematic because of session effects;
contrast: (A > C) > (B > C) would be fine.

If you are stuck with the data as it stands (and no possibility of
finding a baseline condition to add to the model), I don't know if
there is a particularly good solution.  You can choose not to model
session effects, but this will add noise, and I think be a bit harder
to interpret (e.g., is higher signal in a region actually due to your
task, or could it just be a byproduct of one session by chance having
a different level of activity than another?).

Hope this helps,
Jonathan


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Gandolla Marta
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>    I have some problems in two sessions analysis. I want to compare two
> activation maps from the same subject in two different conditions. I built
> the design matrix with two sessions (using first level analysis) so I ended
> up with four columns as you can see from the first figure of the attached
> file. I then did inference analysis with contrast vector of [1 -1 0 0] and I
> suppose I shoud get a map with the significative differences between the two
> conditions.
> my problem is that if I implement this same approach with maps that are
> significantly different for sure (right ankle dorsiflexion and left ankle
> dorsiflexion) I get a "difference map" that is not at all as expected. so as
> you can see what I'm talking about, the second figure of the attached file
> is the result I got.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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