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  August 2012

SPM August 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Validity of within-subject designs in SPM

From:

"MCLAREN, Donald" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MCLAREN, Donald

Date:

Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:19:43 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

Please see my two/three cents below. There is no easy answer, but the
field needs to have more discussions like these as more and more
researchers are using fMRI.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Gabor Oederland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear SPM users,
>
>
> I would like to rise a question about the validity of group analyses in SPM when using within-subject designs with more than one within-subject factor. Although the topic has been discussed various times (see threads about "Flexible factorial", "x by x - ANOVA" and so on) , I somehow have the feeling that there is no definite answer so far. This is somewhat confusing especially for beginners as there are hundreds of fMRI papers by now.

>>> You are correct that there is no definite answer yet. I haven't been able to create simulations for more complex ANOVAs yet, but its on the todo list. There are two issues that need to be dealt with: (1) purely within-subject designs; and (2) within- and between-subject designs.

(1) If you are only looking at the within-subject effects (comparing 2
or more levels of a factor) then the only issue is whether or not SPM
can correct for violations of sphericity in these larger models. To
the degree that the assumption that there are no violations of
sphericity holds, then the results are valid. As far as I know, this
has not been tested in larger models. In simulations of 2x2 designs
(from Rik Henson), if you correct for violations for sphericity, then
you can get accurate and slightly more powerful/robust results. In
larger designs, this has not been demonstrated and in the lab I work
with (the developers of GLM Flex) we have opted for a combined
approach to reduce the probability of violations of sphericity: (a) we
use partioned variance for each factor; (b) we use pooled variance to
correct for violations of sphericity within each factor that has
multiple levels.

(2) If you have a within- and between-subject designs (or are
comparing a single level of a factor - which is a between-subject
effect), then you need to use GLM Flex or use multiple models (one for
the within-subject effects and one for the between-subject effects)
because SPM only uses one error term.


>
> When looking at published papers dealing with two and more within-subject factors, some explicitly or implicitly use Flexible factorial, others seem to use Full factorial, and others don't state which model they use. Some seem to add "subject" as a between-subject factor, other papers seem not. I have been talking to people who are into fMRI successfully for many years. They are no statistical experts, which means that they might run incorrect analyses in a pure statistical sense, but they probably represent the behavior of "normal" fMRI researchers.

>>> I'd suggest you take a look at my poster comparing the models (http://www.martinos.org/~mclaren/ftp/presentations/OHBM2011_v3.pdf). Also, the flexible factorial design is the same as standard statistical packages. You are definitely right that the field needs to be more transparent about their group models.

>
>
> In summary, there seem to be two "popular" options:
> Option 1 is to use "Full factorial" setting "independence" to "no" and "variance" to "equal" (without "subject" as a factor)
> Option 2 is to use "Flexible factorial" (in general with "subject" as a factor)
>
>
> I well understand the different statistical meaning of these models. But nonetheless both options are published regularly (at least I got this impression when looking at various papers). Is this just due to lack of knowledge/disinterest of reviewers?

>>> I can't speak for others, but I always pay close attention to the methods as different methods could significantly change the results. Using the incorrect model could increase the number of significant effects as can be seen on my poster above. I think the field needs to have more statisticians and be more careful about the methods that are employed and how the methods are described.


In case one would want to publish his/her own analysis, which of the
two options mentioned above (or any other) would you prefer? Could one
justify his/her own "incorrect" analysis by refering to other
"incorrect" studies (so keeping with a tradition ;-) ?

>>> I don't think that saying because something was published and was done "incorrectly" that others should also do their statistics "incorrectly". Keep in mind that SPM continually updates their software alogorithms, so we already commonly change what is being done today compared to 10 or more years ago.

>
>
> I'm aware of the scripts known as GLM flex (http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/harvardagingbrain/People/AaronSchultz/Blog/Blog.html), which work with different error terms and help to overcome the problems with traditional SPM analyses. Donald McLaren has written a lot about it in previous threads. Still, I somehow was a little surprised that there was no real discussion about the meaning for studies already published.

>>> There will be some discussion about this in an upcoming paper.

I also wonder whether SPM12 is going to adopt the options of SPM8?

>>> I can't speak for what will be going into SPM12. I'm sure Aaron wouldn't mind having a version of GLM Flex integrated into SPM12. One small caveat, GLM Flex does not use the SPM.mat structure; however, in its own output structure are a number of fields that allow OrthoView to be used seamlessly to view and plot the data.

>
>
> Any comment is greatly appreciated!
>
>
> Gabor

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
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

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