Dear Mark,
thank you for your answer and sorry for the delay but I had some problems.
>> I cannot say for sure, as I do not know how you've setup your EVs. If you have correctly setup EVs for the three groups (EV1-EV3) and for the covariates (EV4-EV5) then the contrasts look fine to me.
The *.mat file is something like this:
/NumWaves 5
/NumPoints 60
/PPheights 1.000000e+00 1.000000e+00 1.000000e+00
/Matrix
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 4.400000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 3.500000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 2.800000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 3.800000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 2.400000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 3.400000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 2.800000E+01
1.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 1.000000E+00 3.800000E+01
...
>> Each test is an independent statistical test in the GLM. However, if you want the equivalent of the ANOVA-style analysis then you would normally look at the F-test result to find which voxels are declared significant and then use the t-test results as post-hoc tests.
Do you mean I've to take the significant results of the F analysis and use them as a mask (1 where significant and 0 differently) for the skeletons in the t-tests?
>> This is possible because the t-tests are one-sided tests while the F-test is two-sided and hence the threshold for significance is more stringent in the F-test (for the same total p-value).
Ok thanks
All the best,
Andrea
|