JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FSL Archives


FSL Archives

FSL Archives


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

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  September 2011

FSL September 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: group differences... short cut?

From:

Michael Harms <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:19:57 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (298 lines)

Glad to hear that reprocessing wasn't a big deal.  It was the right
thing to do.

Now you can just to the "Single-Group Average (One-Sample T-Test)"
higher-level modeling.
http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/feat5/detail.html#SingleGroupAverage

We will end up with cope{1,2,3}.feat directories within the
resulting .gfeat directory, and the stats contained in each of those
will tell you whether that particular cope differed significantly from 0
across your subjects.  

As an aside, note that lower level EVs are NOT "groups" and are not
related to "groups" in any meaningful sense of the word.  Talking about
first level copes as  "group differences" and "group copes" is highly
confusing.

cheers,
-MH

On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:07 -0400, Leslie Engineering wrote:
> Ok I took your advice and reprocessed! :) ... you were pushy!
> 
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but since I had two evs in the individual
> subject models and contrasts (1,-1)(-1,1)(1,1), can I do essentially a
> single group analysis. Won't the group differences be embedded in
> three group copes?
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Michael Harms
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         Is it really that much effort to re-run the lower-level
>         analyses?  It is
>         just processor time :)
>         
>         My bias would be to say that no, what you want to do is
>         unfortunately
>         not ok, unless you can establish equivalence by testing both
>         approaches
>         in a subset of subjects.
>         
>         cheers,
>         -MH
>         
>         
>         On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 12:47 -0400, Leslie Engineering wrote:
>         > Thanks. Yes it is only one group. There isn't necessarily a
>         > correlation between EV1 and EV2 so I was trying to bypass
>         redoing the
>         > lower-level analysis. I guess I just wanted to know if you
>         thought
>         > that was ok?
>         >
>         >
>         > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Michael Harms
>         > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         >         I'm confused by your usage of the term "groups".  Do
>         you
>         >         actually have
>         >         two groups of subjects that you are trying to
>         contrast on a
>         >         given lower
>         >         level contrast?
>         >
>         >         Or are you simply trying to figure out a way to
>         effect the
>         >         equivalent of
>         >         a (1,-1) contrast that should have been included in
>         the 1st
>         >         level, but
>         >         wasn't?  If this is the case, then it all depends on
>         the
>         >         degree of
>         >         correlation of EV1 and EV2, as I noted when you
>         inquired about
>         >         this
>         >         previously
>         >         https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?
>         >         A2=ind1109&L=FSL&P=R16891&1=FSL&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match%
>         3BMatch%
>         >         3BMatches&z=4
>         >
>         >         The "proper" way to do this is to redo the lower-
>         level
>         >         modeling with
>         >         (1,-1) included as a contrast.  As a general matter,
>         desired
>         >         contrasts
>         >         should be included in the first level modeling so
>         that you
>         >         properly
>         >         account for the correlation between EVs.
>         >
>         >         cheers,
>         >         -MH
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         >         On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:55 -0400, Leslie
>         Engineering wrote:
>         >         > I think you misunderstand. The last question was
>         in regard
>         >         to 1 group
>         >         > that individual subjects were run with EV1 and EV2
>         >         paradigms.
>         >         > Unfortunately I ran contrasts (1,0) (0,1) (1,1).
>         But, now I
>         >         want to
>         >         > see activation differences between EV1 and EV2.
>         This would
>         >         have been
>         >         > straight forward had my contrasts been (1,-1) and
>         (-1,1) (i
>         >         believe).
>         >         > But, since I don't have that, may I run each
>         subject twice
>         >         and
>         >         > consider the EV1s and EV2s different groups so I
>         don't have
>         >         to rerun
>         >         > the individuals with the proper contrasts?
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > Thanks
>         >         >
>         >         > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Michael Harms
>         >         > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         >         >         To compare groups you need to run a
>         "Higher-level
>         >         analysis" in
>         >         >         FEAT
>         >         >         using the lower-level FEAT directories as
>         inputs.
>         >          This will
>         >         >         then create
>         >         >         a group contrast for each of your lower-
>         level
>         >         copes.  Assuming
>         >         >         that you
>         >         >         have already created the desired lower-
>         level copes
>         >         at the
>         >         >         individual
>         >         >         level, then no, you don't have to rerun
>         individuals.
>         >         >
>         >         >         cheers,
>         >         >         -MH
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >         On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 11:38 -0400, Leslie
>         >         Engineering wrote:
>         >         >         > Or can I just treat them as two separate
>         groups so
>         >         i don't
>         >         >         have to
>         >         >         > rerun individuals?
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Leslie
>         >         Engineering
>         >         >         > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         >         >         >         So I am a little confused, then.
>         If i have
>         >         >         individual subjects
>         >         >         >         that were run with two EVs
>         contrasts (1,0)
>         >         (0,1)
>         >         >         (1,1), do I
>         >         >         >         have to go back and rerun each
>         individual
>         >         subject
>         >         >         with
>         >         >         >         contrasts (1,-1)(-1,1) in order
>         to get
>         >         group
>         >         >         differences or
>         >         >         >         can I manipulate these in some
>         way?
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >         On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:14
>         AM, Michael
>         >         Harms
>         >         >         >         <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>         >         >         >                 Group contrasts (and
>         statistics)
>         >         should be
>         >         >         calculated
>         >         >         >                 from the
>         >         >         >                 appropriate copes, not
>         done "post-
>         >         hoc" by
>         >         >         subtracting
>         >         >         >                 z-maps.
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >                 See
>         >         >         >
>         >         >
>         >
>         http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/feat5/detail.html#UnpairedTwoGroupDifference
>         >         >         >                 which provides a clear
>         example of
>         >         how to
>         >         >         proceed.
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >                 cheers,
>         >         >         >                 -MH
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >                 On Tue, 2011-09-20 at
>         11:07 -0400,
>         >         Leslie
>         >         >         Engineering
>         >         >         >                 wrote:
>         >         >         >                 > does it make a
>         difference if
>         >         instead I
>         >         >         have one
>         >         >         >                 group that went
>         >         >         >                 > through a single
>         paradigm, EV.
>         >         If EV is
>         >         >         made up of
>         >         >         >                 two separate
>         >         >         >                 > stimuli blocks and I
>         want to
>         >         separate them
>         >         >         into  EV1
>         >         >         >                 and EV2, can I
>         >         >         >                 > run a single group
>         average using
>         >         EV1 and a
>         >         >         single
>         >         >         >                 group average using
>         >         >         >                 > EV2 then subtract the
>         z scores
>         >         for an
>         >         >         activation
>         >         >         >                 difference between
>         >         >         >                 > the two stimuli?
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 > thanks so much
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011
>         at 10:08
>         >         AM, Leslie
>         >         >         Engineering
>         >         >         >                 >
>         <[log in to unmask]>
>         >         wrote:
>         >         >         >                 >         Hello-
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >         I ran two
>         separate
>         >         simple group
>         >         >         average
>         >         >         >                 analysis. Both groups
>         >         >         >                 >         underwent the
>         same fmri
>         >         scan
>         >         >         sequence.
>         >         >         >                 Instead of rerunning a
>         >         >         >                 >         group analysis
>         and
>         >         included all
>         >         >         subjects
>         >         >         >                 from both groups and
>         >         >         >                 >         setting up
>         contrasts for
>         >         group
>         >         >         differences
>         >         >         >                 (1,-1)(-1,1), is it
>         >         >         >                 >         statistically
>         sound to
>         >         simply
>         >         >         subtract their
>         >         >         >                 zscores?
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >                 >
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >
>         >         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
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


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

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

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