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 2014

FSL September 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Pre-thesholding Masking vs. Contrast Masking

From:

Kenneth Valyear <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:55:03 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

Dear FSL support forum,
 
For the purpose of addressing my current concerns, let’s assume the I have a very simply paradigm involving only the following conditions:
 
Left Hand (LH) - movements of the left hand
Left Foot (LF) - movements of the left foot
Rest - baseline (fixation)
 
I have 4 runs per subject, and what I would like to determine at the single subject level (averaged across runs - i.e. second-level analyses) are those areas showing LH > LF AND LH > rest.
 
To this end, I have compared results derived from the following two approaches:
 
A. “Pre-threshold masking”
 
Step A-1: Calculate the results of the contrast: LH > rest (at z =2.3, cluster-size corrected at p <.05); second-level (gfeat directory).
 
A-2 use this output: thresholded z-stat map - to constrain the contrast: LH > LF
 
i.e. Step A-3: Calculate the results of the contrast LH > LF (at z=2.3, cluster-size corrected at p<.05) --- Constrained by the results of A-1: --- using Pre-thresholding masking --- selecting the threshold_zstat (that reflects LH > rest).
 
--- I COMPARED THESE RESULTS WITH APPROACH B --- 

B. Contrast masking (at the second-level)
 
Step B-1: Set data input to: “3D cope images from FEAT directories”
 
B-2: Select the COPEs from the gfeat that reflect: (1) LH > rest and (2) LH > LF
 
B-3: Specify these as EVs, and then as contrasts C1: LH > rest and C2: LH > LF, in the model
 
B-4: Use post-stats, contrast masking: Mask C2 with C1 (with the option "mask using z>0" NOT selected)
 
Again, I applied the default threshold settings: z 2.3, cluster-size correction at p <.05.
 
COMPARE RESULTS:
 
The maps are virtually identical.
 
However, the results of method B - using contrast masking - are not corrected for multiple comparisons using cluster-size thresholding methods.
 
That is, the resultant maps from methods A and B overlap entirely, accept that the  thresholded z-maps from Method A are cluster-size corrected whereas the thresholded z-maps from Method B are not.
 
That no correction is being applied to the resultant maps from B is clear:

i. Some of the active clusters comprising the thresholded maps from Method B are only 1/2 voxels - these voxels are absent from the thresholded results from Method A.
ii. When these maps are compared with corresponding uncorrected z-maps, they are identical. 


QUESTIONS:
 
Q-1: Does the contrast masking option not allow for implementation of cluster-based correction of the resultant z-maps (in the case of conjunction-derived outcomes: e.g. C2: LH > LF masked by C1: LH > rest)?
 
Q-2: In general, is there a consensus about whether one of these methods - A versus B - is more appropriate? I understand that B is a ‘true’ conjunction analysis, while method A is not, but is there anything invalid or worrisome about performing method A? 

One of the features I find potentially advantageous about using method A is that the one may apply different statistical thresholds to either contrast. For example, one might reasonably argue that a contrast of a stimulus Condition versus Rest merits application of more stringent statistical thresholds - greater than z =2.3 (which, in general, is a very liberal minimum statistical threshold to use for fMRI data, in my experience). With Method A above, one could create the map of Condition > Rest at a higher z-min, (e.g. z = 3.09, p < .001, uncorrected) then apply this map to constrain more selective contrasts of interest, set to more liberal thresholds. 

Of course, Method A also reduces the number of multiple comparisons - making step two of map thresholding - correction for multiple comparisons - more reasonable. After all, in this situation, I have no hypothesis about areas/voxels showing greater activity for Hand versus Foot movements, but NOT for Hand above baseline (rest = fixation). Here, it seems sensible to constrain the number of voxels being considered to those that are activated by the task versus rest. 

To all you FSL gurus - your input is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance,
Ken

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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