Reply-To: | | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 1) After your question I have been looking at the VOI data again and I found >> that I did >> not correct for effects of interest properly when extracting the VOI. >> Therefore, I repeated the analysis today using the PPI toolbox of Donald >> McLaren >> using both the traditional PPI analysis as well as the generalized PPI >> analysis. >> In both cases I corrected for 'effects of interest' . The traditional >> analysis led to exactly >> the same result as before, showing decreased correlation in target trials >> compared >> to standard trials from the seed region to a large network including the >> seed region. >> The generalized analysis showed no difference at all between target and >> standard trials. >> I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on what is causing these effects. >> >> 2) The contrasts for the three conditions (standards, targets, novels) were >> -1 1 0 >> (fixation was the baseline and was not explicitly modeled in the design). >> Other factors in the design were the movement parameters. >> >> Kind regards, >> Linda >> >> >> >> Darren Gitelman wrote: >> >>> Linda >>> >>> 1) Did you adjust the data? (When you click the Eigenvariate button it >>> asks if you want to adjust the data.) >>> >>> 2) You say below that your PPI was [1 -1] for the 2 stimulus types, >>> but you list 4 conditions below (standards, targets, novels and >>> fixation). What did you include in your PPI and what were the other >>> columns of your design? >>> >>> Darren >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:01 PM, L.Geerligs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thank you for your fast reply. >>>> I actually first did the PPI using the standard method in SPM. Then I >>>> realPkmÝ |