To: [log in to unmask] (ERIC ZARAHN)
Re: contrast again
Dear Eric,
I agree. To take your points in reverse order, I wrote 'activations common for A1 and A2' as shorthand for 'activations in A1 and/or A2 relative to R', which was P. Nijland's original question, but this formulation was apparently ambiguous.
And, of course, significant activations in a combined (A1 + A2) main effect do not imply that these occur in both A1 and A2; as you pointed out, a large activation in, say, A2 may even conceal a deactivation in A1.
Sincerely,
Dick Veltman
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|