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  1999

SPM 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Normalization

From:

Jesper Andersson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jesper Andersson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:30:34 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

Dear Steven,

>I want to compare results from SPM  and an ROI analysis.  Our ROI data is
>proportionaly normalized, whereas I have been using ANCOVA normalization for
>SPM.  This has lead me to an exercise into understanding how SPM performs the
>ANCOVA adjustment for global values.  The example in the SPM course book
is for
>a single subject with multiple replications, and the calculation of the
adjusted
>ANCOVA values for a given pixel is clear to me for that type of study.
>
>But I am  dealing with FDG data where each subject gets only two scans, one
>under each condition.   This is how I understand SPM calculates the ANCOVA
>adjusted values.
>
>1)  There is only a single data point for each pixel per subject per
condition.
>Therefore, the beta coeffcient for the regression of the pixel value with the
>global value is taken as 1.0.  If there were more than one scan per
condition,
>then the beta coefficient could be calculated and would not be necessarily =
>1.0.
>

The problem you describe here pertains to the situation where one attempts
to fit a separate beta for each subject, which as you correctly have
inferred is not really a sensible thing to do. This would effectively "rob"
you of all your degrees of freedom. 
However, the way around this is not that which you have suggested, but
simply to estimate a single beta for each voxel across all subjects. This
means that you assume that a given voxel has the same behaviour with
respect to changes in global flow for all subjects. 

>2)  The global values for scan 1 and scan 2 are averaged to yield an Global
>Mean.
>

Nope, the global values are averaged across all subjects and scans to yield
a global mean.

>3) The adjusted pixel value for a given scan and subject is calculated as
>Y(adj) = Y(actual) - 1*(Scan Global - Global Mean)
>

Nope, a single beta is estimated based on all scans of the study and
Y(adj) = Y(actual) - beta(Scan Global - Global Mean)
I addition any subject specific effects will be subtracted from the
adjusted values.

>To give an numerical example for a single subject
>
>			Scan A		Scan B
>Actual Pixel Value	804		906
>Global Value		975		1027
>Beta			    1                      1
>Global Mean		1001                 1001
>
>Adjusted Pixel Scan A = 804 - 1*(975 -1001) = 804 + 26 = 830
>Adjusted Pixel Scan B = 906 - 1*(1027 - 1001) = 906 - 26 = 880
>
>This represents a 6% change across sessions.  Just for comparison, after
>proportional normalization would  Scan A = 0.825  and Scan B = 0.883, for
a 7 %
>difference.
>
>Issues of smoothing in SPM and averaging within an ROI aside, the main
>differences between the statistical analysis  from proportional normalization
>and ANCOVA normalization should mainly be a function of the reduction of a
>degree of freedom in the ANCOVA, and the slightly larger difference in the
>proportionally normalized data.
>

The main differences between ANCOVA proportional normalisation is that the
proportional normalisation will scale the variance whereas ANCOVA will not.
This has some implications regarding the validity of the subsequent
statsistical modelling where it is assumed that each point is associated
with the same experimental uncertainty. It is really not clear what is the
correct model, but as a rule of thumb one can say that if one believes that
the dominating source of variance in the globals is "apparatus dependent"
(i.e. differences in injected dose (PET) or drifts in amplifier electronics
(fMRI) then proportional scaling is clearly more correct. If on the other
hand one believes that the dominating source is "physiological" then the
issue becomes less clear. In your case, quantitative FDG, I would guess
that the latter situation is true.
You should be aware though that all empirical studies comparing ANCOVA and
proportional normalisation have indicated that there is little practical
difference.
 
>Do I have this right ?
>
Well, not quite. I hope this reply have made it a bit clearer though.


				Good luck Jesper



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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