Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

## FSL@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 FSL Home FSL April 2010

#### Options

Subject:

Re: repeated measures 2x2 anova

From:

Date:

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:08:04 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (105 lines)
 ```Oops! I thought that the system would link the original post to mine. Here it is again with the original question and the response from 2004. ------------- I was wondering if I can get your insight on several questions I had about this approach to modeling a 2x2 within and between design. 1. Given the contrasts and F-tests Arun proposed (below), what is the difference between the third contrast (EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4 = 0, 0, 1, 0) and the third F-test (off, off, on)? > 1 2 3 4 > C1 1 0 0 0 > C2 0 1 0 0 > C3 0 0 1 0 > > and the F-tests are (with their interpretation) > > F1 F2 F3 > C1 on off off - main effect of task > C2 off on off - main effect of group > C3 off off on- interaction between the two factors 2. Dr. Smith proposes tweaking Arun's design by replacing "EV4 with a set of EVs, one for each subject ID, in the manner of the paired t-test." My interpretation of this tweak is that it is an attempt to "model-out" the individual means of each subject separately in contrast to modeling out the grand mean. Is this interpretation correct? 3. Are both ways of modeling a 2x2 repeated measures design (Arun's original versus Dr. Smith's tweak) interpreted the same. My understanding is that Arun's original suggestion is similar to an unpaired t-test, while the addition of the tweak would be like a paired t-test. Is Arun's original method more susceptible to more Type II error than the tweaked method? Thanks a million, Omar ____________________ Hi Arun, I think this looks fine. Both your factors are fixed, surely (you are getting representative samples of both levels of both factors)? The only tweaking I can possibly see, is that you probably get slightly better modelling if you replace EV4 with a set of EVs, one for each subject ID, in the manner of the paired t-test - does that improve things? Cheers. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Arun Bokde wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to set up a repeated measures 2x2 anova at the second level > and examine the interaction. I have two groups of subjects (group 1 and > 2) and each subject did 2 tasks (task A and B). The repeated measure > would be the tasks (2 levels). I would like to ask the question: are > there any task by group interactions ? I have set up things as > described below and I have a few questions. > > I already have the COPE images for every subjects and task. I was > thinking of setting up the second level analysis as follows (with > smaller number of subjects for simplification). Each row represents a > COPE image from one subject. > > group EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 > group_1_task_A_subj1 1 1 1 1 1 > group_1_task_A_subj2 1 1 1 1 1 > group_1_task_A_subj3 1 1 1 1 1 > group_1_task_A_subj4 1 1 1 1 1 > group_2_task_A_subj1 2 1 -1 -1 1 > group_2_task_A_subj2 2 1 -1 -1 1 > group_2_task_A_subj3 2 1 -1 -1 1 > group_1_task_B_subj1 1 -1 1 -1 1 > group_1_task_B_subj2 1 -1 1 -1 1 > group_1_task_B_subj3 1 -1 1 -1 1 > group_1_task_B_subj4 1 -1 1 -1 1 > group_2_task_B_subj1 2 -1 -1 1 1 > group_2_task_B_subj2 2 -1 -1 1 1 > group_2_task_B_subj3 2 -1 -1 1 1 > > EV1 models task, EV2 models effects of group membership, EV3 the group x > task interaction, and EV4 is the grand mean. > > The contrasts that I am thinking of implementing are as follows: > 1 2 3 4 > C1 1 0 0 0 > C2 0 1 0 0 > C3 0 0 1 0 > > and the F-tests are (with their interpretation) > > F1 F2 F3 > C1 on off off - main effect of task > C2 off on off - main effect of group > C3 off off on - interaction between the two factors > > > Question: is the repeated measures factor (task) the same as considering > this variable as fixed and the other factor (group) as random ? I > believe the F-tests above will not give me the exact test that I want > but I am not sure. > > > Thanks in advance, > > Arun >  Stephen M. Smith DPhil  Associate Director, FMRIB and Analysis Research Coordinator  Oxford University Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain  John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK  +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)  [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve```