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  January 2014

SPM January 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: DCM BMS

From:

Thilo Kellermann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Thilo Kellermann <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:12:06 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (107 lines)

Dear Louise,

it's hard to say what is valid and/or sufficient with regard to the 
specification of a model space because it depends on the persuasiveness 
of your reasons to define a specific space...

However, if you specify only models with endogenous connections and 
direct inputs of C1 only it is definitely not ok to claim that the 
obtained dynamics reflect those only during C1. Endogenous connections 
always reflect the average "dynamics" among the ROIs independent from 
any condition(s).

If you are interested in the dynamics that are specific to C1, you are 
(by definition) interested in a modulatory input of C1, i.e. which 
connections are affected by condition C1.

In your case I would suggest to setup new first-level SPM.mat files 
(without the need to really estimate these models). These new models 
also have two regressors where the first includes all (!) dynamic scenes 
and the second only those from condition C1. This approach is analogous 
to the attention-to-motion task by Friston and Büchel (see SPM manual).

When you use these SPM.mats in the DCM model specification you can 
define direct inputs of all dynamic scenes (e.g. an early visual 
region). Then you specify the connections that you assume to be 
modulated by C1. By switching some of these connections on and off you 
define successively your model space and you will see which model(s) 
among those tested actually best describe your data.

The new specification of the inputs in new SPM.mats has the advantage 
that you "simultaneously" (or better: implicitly) test the modulatory 
input of C1 against all dynamic scenes. If you simultaneously switch the 
modulatory inputs of all dynamic scenes according to those specified for 
C1, the modulatory inputs of C1 will reflect the additional rate of 
change attributable to C1 compared to all other scences. In other words, 
if the parameter is positive you can conclude that the respective 
connection is enhanced during C1 compared to all other scenes (or 
suppressed during C2) whereas it is suppressed when the parameter is 
negative (or the connection is enhanced during C2).

Hope this helps although it might sound a bit complicated...
Thilo


On 01/24/2014 03:22 PM, Louise Kauffmann wrote:
> Dear SPM-ers,
>
> I am currently trying to use DCM on fMRI data. My design includes three
> conditions (modeled as three regressors) :
> - C1: visual perception of dynamic scenes (short movies)
> - C2: visual perception of the same dynamic scenes as in C1, but
> time-reversed
> - C3: Fixation periods
>
> the contrast of interest [C1>C2]  reveals significant activation in 3
> regions, and I am interested in unerstanding the interactions between
> those 3 regions, in the C1 condition. The reverse contrast revealed no
> significant activation. My question is the following:
>
> Is it valid (and sufficient) to compare models varying only in their
> endogenous connections (with no modulation) and specifying only C1 as
> driving input? (and is it OK to think that the winning model would
> reflect the dynamics between the 3 ROI, only during C1 condition?). If
> it is correct, is there a published study using the same rationale?
> Also, would it be valid to do the same with only C2 as driving input and
> then show that the winning model in C1 is different from the winning
> model in C2?
> I know that it would be more appropriate to compare models with
> connections modulated by C1 or C2, but in this case, driving and
> modulatory inputs would be the same and I believe that it is not correct.
>
> Any help would be really appreciated.
> Thanks,
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> --
>
> Louise KAUFFMANN
>
>
> Laboratoire de Psychologie et Neurocognition
>
> CNRS UMR 5105
>
> Université Pierre Mendès-France
>
> BP47, 38040 Grenoble Cedex 9 France
>
> Tel: 04 76 82 54 00
>
> http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/lpnc/membre_louise_kauffmann
>
-- 
Thilo Kellermann
RWTH Aachen University
Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
JARA Translational Brain Medicine
Pauwelsstr. 30
52074 Aachen
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)241 / 8089977
Fax.: +49 (0)241 / 8082401
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]

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