Hmmm... I've tried testing this.
I generated a whitened, frequency-filtered time course, Y, as per usual
using spm_regions. xY.X0 contained the block effects and low frequency
confounds. I then removed the block effects from xY.X0 and applied the
correction used in spm_peb_ppi (line 415) to generated Yc. So, This time I
was only correcting the time course for the low frequency confounds for a
second time. The correction is given by
Yc = Y - X0*inv(X0'*X0)*X0'*Y;
However, this left Yc unchanged from Y. So, unless additional confounds are
specified, the only difference between Y and Yc in a standard implementation
of ppi seems to be the removal of block effects in Yc. Since this shouldn't
really affect the deconvolution, and since Y is already frequency filtered
by spm_regions, it seems to be like best practice would be to deconvolve Yc,
rather than Y, given the additional removal of nuisance confounds if they
are pre-specified. Does this seem like a reasonable conclusion?
Thanks again,
Alex
On 07/05/2011 12:33, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There might be some residual effects of filtering a second time since
> X0 consists of K.X0 and iB.
>
> The iB is just a constant, so it wouldn't have any effect on the
> deconvolution either way, just shifts the values up or down.
>
> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
> =================
> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
> Office: (773) 406-2464
> =====================
> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
> email.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Alex Fornito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Actually, sorry one more question:
>>
>> If Y in spm_peb_ppi is already frequency filtered by spm_regions, then the
>> only difference (barring any additional confounds specified with xX.iG)
>> between Y and Yc is the additional removal of block effects.
>>
>> Since the ppi interaction term is generated from Y and not Yc, I am
>> presuming then that is solely because it is not desirable to deconvolve a
>> time course with block effects removed. Is this correct?
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/2011 04:07, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> The null-space of the contrast are any columns of the contrast (which
>>> must be an F-contrast) that are 0. Thus, you remove the effects of
>>> motion when you do the adjustment and don't need to worry about them
>>> being included in the deconvolved data. The code that I have supplied
>>> has N rows for N conditions of interest after I talked to Darren about
>>> the ideal contrast to use for adjustment.
>>>
>>> As for removing the frequencies, I think it is probably fine to remove
>>> them, I was just under the impression that they weren't being removed
>>> because of me commenting out that line during testing of spm_regions.
>>> I would go with the SPM defaults until their effect is tested. If you
>>> don't set a high-pass filter, then you won't remove the frequencies,
>>> so you could test it that way as well.
>>>
>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>> =================
>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>> =====================
>>> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
>>> email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Alex Fornito <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Donald, Torben and Darren,
>>>> Thanks for your responses.
>>>>
>>>> Form each of your responses, it seems like best practice would be to remove
>>>> motion (and/or other confounds) from the VOI time series prior to
>>>> deconvolution.
>>>>
>>>> It also seems like you are recommending NOT to frequency filter the VOI
>>>> time
>>>> series.
>>>>
>>>> In my reading though, spm_regions does this by default with the call to
>>>> spm_filter (line 135). So, if spm_regions is used to extract a VOI time
>>>> series, the time series that is input to spm_peb_ppi will already frequency
>>>> filtered. So it seems like, in standard practice, the deconvolution is
>>>> applied to frequency-filtered data. In this case, if xX.iG is empty, the
>>>> only difference between Y and Yc in spm_peb_ppi is the additional removal
>>>> of
>>>> block effects (xX.iB).
>>>>
>>>> Based on the current chain of emails, it seems you are recommending that a
>>>> confound-corrected, whitened, but non-frequency filtered time course should
>>>> be input to spm_peb_ppi. IS that correct, or am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Finally, can I clarify exactly what the null space of the contrast is? Most
>>>> of the time in my analyses I don't get the option to adjust for it, so
>>>> xY.Ic
>>>> is empty.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for all your help,
>>>> A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/05/2011 02:18, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't thoroughly tested this, but if you set iG to be the movement
>>>>> parameters columns. Then still adjust for the null space (motion
>>>>> parameters). You will get the best of both. If you don't adjust for
>>>>> the null space, then movement will contribute to the deconvolution. In
>>>>> summary, if you have iG be the motion parameter columns AND adjust for
>>>>> the null-space (motion columns), then:
>>>>>
>>>>> Y will have the effect of motion removed. Yc (removal of motion twice)
>>>>> will be minimally different since Y is orthogonal to the motion
>>>>> parameters. So, you have motion removed from both the autocorrelation
>>>>> estimate, the Y for deconvolution, and Yc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>>>> =================
>>>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>>>> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
>>>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>>>> =====================
>>>>> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
>>>>> email.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Torben Ellegaard Lund
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Den Uge:18 05/05/2011 kl. 14.15 skrev Alex Fornito:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Torben,
>>>>>>> Sorry, I just wanted to clarify: do you mean leaving SPM.xX.iG empty? It
>>>>>>> seems like this is done by default by spm_fmri_design (?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leaving it empty will include all user defined regressors in the effects
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> interest F-test which determines the mask where the serial correlation is
>>>>>> estimated. I think it would make sense if the motion regressors did not
>>>>>> go
>>>>>> into this test, just like the DCS HP-filter does not go into the
>>>>>> F-contrast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting manually entering motion parameters into this field?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, or their indices that is. It should be done after specification, but
>>>>>> before model estimation. You can check if SPM recognized your changes by
>>>>>> looking at the automatically generated effects of interest F-contrast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Torben
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/05/2011 18:16, "Torben Ellegaard Lund" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as a kind reminder. Leaving SPM.xX.iG is a bit unfortunate,
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> voxels where motion artefacts are significant then constitutes a large
>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the F-test derived mask used to estimate serial correlations. If you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> picky
>>>>>>>> about this you can change it yourselves, but it is not as easy as it
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Torben
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Den Uge:18 05/05/2011 kl. 05.03 skrev Alex Fornito:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ahh, I see. I was assuming that SPM.xX.iG contained the indices to the
>>>>>>>>> nuisance covariates in the design matrix, but you're right -
>>>>>>>>> spm_fMRI_design
>>>>>>>>> leaves it empty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help!
>>>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/05/2011 12:54, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that nuisance covariates, such as motion should be removed;
>>>>>>>>>> however, motion covariates are not generally stored in X0 in my
>>>>>>>>>> reading of the SPM code (spm_fMRI_design, spm_regions). They should
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> removed in the spm_regions filtering based on the null-space of the
>>>>>>>>>> contrast.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for the motion parameters being in the model, if they were in the
>>>>>>>>>> standard analysis, they should be included in the PPI analysis. My
>>>>>>>>>> gPPI code will do this automatically as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> X0 is made of SPM.xX.iB (block effects -- so removing the mean) and
>>>>>>>>>> SPM.xX.iG (nuisance variable that is empty as far as I can tell (line
>>>>>>>>>> 369 of spm_fMRI_design)) and the high-pass filtering (K.X0).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>>>>>>>>> =================
>>>>>>>>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>>>>>>>>> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
>>>>>>>>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>>>>>>>>> =====================
>>>>>>>>>> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
>>>>>>>>>> email.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Donald,
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. When you say "you don't want
>>>>>>>>>>> to filter out anything related to neural activity", I'm presuming
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> are referring to the deconvolved neural signal?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If so, that makes sense. However, X0 also contains user-specified
>>>>>>>>>>> nuisance
>>>>>>>>>>> covariates. I would have thought it would make sense to remove
>>>>>>>>>>> those,
>>>>>>>>>>> depending on what they were (e.g., movement parameters)? I guess
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> always be entered into the PPI regression model...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/05/2011 11:57, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could be wrong, Karl or Darren please correct me if I am.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> X0 is composed of the high-pass filter and constant term. Thus, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to filter these out of the Yc regressor. However, you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>> to filter out anything related to neural activity, so you wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to filter your signal and then predict the neural activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the filtered signal, especially filtering frequencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>>>>>>>>>>> =================
>>>>>>>>>>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>>>>>>>>>>> =====================
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Donald,
>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, spm_regions filters and whitens the VOI time
>>>>>>>>>>>> series,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and adjusts for the null space of the contrast if an adjustment is
>>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>>> in xY.Ic. It defines the confound matrix, X0, but does not correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The following line in spm_peb_ppi corrects for the confounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yc = Y - X0*inv(X0'*X0)*X0'*Y;
>>>>>>>>>>>> PPI.Y = Yc(:,1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the above correction does seem to be doing something different
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> spm_regions. I'm wondering why the uncorrected data, Y, is used
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> generating the ppi interaction term, while the corrected data Yc is
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> used as a covariate of no interest in the PPI model. I would has
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>> that Yc should be used to generate the ppi interaction term as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In my data, my X0 is a 195 x 7 matrix (I have 195 volumes per
>>>>>>>>>>>> session).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/04/2011 02:22, "MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually travelling at the moment. However, I know Y has
>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> been adjusted as part of the VOI processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you check what X0 looks like?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Donald McLaren
>>>>>>>>>>>> =================
>>>>>>>>>>>> D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hospital and Harvard Medical School
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office: (773) 406-2464
>>>>>>>>>>>> =====================
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 (773) 406-2464 or
>>>>>>>>>>>> email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a question concerning the code used to implement a PPI
>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the spm_peb_ppi.m function packaged with SPM8, lines 329-332
>>>>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>>>> confounds from the input seed region¹s time course:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> % Remove confounds and save Y in ouput structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> %------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yc = Y - X0*inv(X0'*X0)*X0'*Y;
>>>>>>>>>>>> PPI.Y = Yc(:,1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PPI.Y is then to be used as a covariate of no interest when
>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> PPI
>>>>>>>>>>>> regression model. However, on line 488, it is the uncorrected seed
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> course, Y, that is input to the deconvolution routine and used to
>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ppi term:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> C = spm_PEB(Y,P);
>>>>>>>>>>>> xn = xb*C{2}.E(1:N);
>>>>>>>>>>>> xn = spm_detrend(xn);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> % Setup psychological variable from inputs and contast weights
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> %------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> PSY = zeros(N*NT,1);
>>>>>>>>>>>> for i = 1:size(U.u,2)
>>>>>>>>>>>> PSY = PSY + full(U.u(:,i)*U.w(:,i));
>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>> % PSY = spm_detrend(PSY); <- removed centering of psych variable
>>>>>>>>>>>> % prior to multiplication with xn. Based on discussion with Karl
>>>>>>>>>>>> % and Donald McLaren.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> % Multiply psychological variable by neural signal
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> %------------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>
>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> PSYxn = PSY.*xn;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any specific reason why Y, rather than Yc(:,1), is used to
>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>> PSYxn? I thought Yc might be more appropriate (?).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow
>>>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>>>>>>>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>>>>>>>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>>>>>>>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow
>>>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>>>>>>>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>>>>>>>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>>>>>>>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow
>>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>>>>>>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>>>>>>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>>>>>>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>>>>>>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>>>>>>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>>>>>>> Research Fellow
>>>>>>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>>>>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>>>>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>>>>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>>>>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>>>>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>>>>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>>>>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>>>>> Research Fellow
>>>>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Alex Fornito
>>>> Research Fellow
>>>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>>>> University of Melbourne
>>>> National Neuroscience Facility
>>>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>>>> 161 Barry St
>>>> Carlton South 3053
>>>> Victoria, Australia
>>>>
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>>>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Alex Fornito
>> Research Fellow
>> Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
>> University of Melbourne
>> National Neuroscience Facility
>> Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
>> 161 Barry St
>> Carlton South 3053
>> Victoria, Australia
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
>> Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
>>
>
------------------------------------------
Alex Fornito
Research Fellow
Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre
University of Melbourne
National Neuroscience Facility
Levels 1 & 2, Alan Gilbert Building
161 Barry St
Carlton South 3053
Victoria, Australia
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +61 3 8344 1876
Fax: +61 3 9348 0469
|