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  October 2013

SPM October 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: empty regressors onsets in design matrix model specification

From:

Marko Wilke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Marko Wilke <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:56:59 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (160 lines)

Hi Ari,

I see your problem and there likely is no optimal solution, so you might 
end up having to choose from two lesser evils. I had probably not dared 
to suggest using one dummy regressor for the last scan if the idea had 
not been Karl's in the first place ;) Due to the hemodynamic delay, you 
should not really see an effect in that regressor; it will, however, 
prevent the power issue I mentioned. Further, you can also not use that 
regressor if you do not specify it, so this problem will be similar if 
you choose the alternative you originally suggested. Perhaps you can 
specify an additional regressor that models some kind of baseline in all 
subjects, regardless of them making errors or not, and use that as a 
reference?

Cheers,
Marko

Ari Pinar wrote:
> Hi Marko,
>
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> The concern I had with option 2 is focused on the interpretation of the
> contrast.
>
> Say I want to contrast two types of errors, errorA and errorB.
>
> For one subject, there are no events corresponding to errorB in one session.
>
> If I model errorB with a regressor in which the only event is the last
> time point, then the contrast will be errorA vs last [timepoint], which
> doesn't make much sense to me.
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
>
> Ari
>
>
> Ari Pinar
>
> PhD Candidate
> Monash Clinical & Imaging Neuroscience
> School of Psychology and Psychiatry &
> Monash Biomedical Imaging
> Monash University
>
> A: 770 Blackburn Rd, Clayton, 3168, Vic, Australia
> E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> On 17 October 2013 23:48, Marko Wilke <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Ari,
>
>     I would opt for option 2, for the simple fact that you "win" degrees
>     of freedom in those that do not make errors, which then again may
>     bias your analyses later-on. Not by much (see PMID 22036679 for some
>     pretty extensive simulations), but it may still unbalance your
>     design nonetheless.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Marko
>
>
>     Ari Pinar wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         I have a fMRI task comprising 4 conditions and 6 sessions.
>
>         I am trying to build a first-level design matrix for each
>         subject in which distinct regressors encode correct responses
>         and errors in the different conditions.
>
>         The problem is that for some subjects and some sessions, no
>         errors are committed. This means that my error regressors are
>         empty for some sessions (e.g., there may be events for sessions
>         1, 3, 4 and 5 but not 2 and 6).
>
>         It seems like there are two ways of dealing with this:
>         1 – don’t specify a regressor if the error condition contains no
>         events in a given session
>         2 – create a dummy regressor in which there is a single value
>         for the last timepoint (as suggested on another post)
>
>         I have two questions:
>         1 – is one approach better than the other? Seems to me like
>         option 1 is preferable.
>         2 – what is the best way of handling contrasts in this case? I
>         could specify separate contrast estimates for each session, then
>         create an average contrast across only the sessions in which the
>         contrast is valid. However, if there are data for 3 sessions in
>         one subject and data for 6 sessions in another subject, will
>         this create scaling problems or does SPM8 already account for this?
>
>         Thanks for your help,
>
>         Ari
>
>
>     --
>     ______________________________________________________
>     PD Dr. med. Marko Wilke
>       Facharzt für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin
>       Leiter, Experimentelle Pädiatrische Neurobildgebung
>       Universitäts-Kinderklinik
>       Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie)
>
>
>     Marko Wilke, MD, PhD
>       Pediatrician
>       Head, Experimental Pediatric Neuroimaging
>       University Children's Hospital
>       Dept. III (Pediatric Neurology)
>
>
>     Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1
>       D - 72076 Tübingen, Germany
>       Tel. +49 7071 29-83416 <tel:%2B49%207071%2029-83416>
>       Fax +49 7071 29-5473 <tel:%2B49%207071%2029-5473>
>     [log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>     http://www.medizin.uni-__tuebingen.de/kinder/epn/
>     <http://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/kinder/epn/>
>     ______________________________________________________
>
>

-- 
____________________________________________________
PD Dr. med. Marko Wilke
  Facharzt für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin
  Leiter, Experimentelle Pädiatrische Neurobildgebung
  Universitäts-Kinderklinik
  Abt. III (Neuropädiatrie)


Marko Wilke, MD, PhD
  Pediatrician
  Head, Experimental Pediatric Neuroimaging
  University Children's Hospital
  Dept. III (Pediatric Neurology)


Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 1
  D - 72076 Tübingen, Germany
  Tel. +49 7071 29-83416
  Fax  +49 7071 29-5473
  [log in to unmask]

  http://www.medizin.uni-tuebingen.de/kinder/epn/
____________________________________________________

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