 |
 |
Your contrast looks wrong - seems like you are comparing the constant (+1, last column) against the 3rd column (-1) You probably should use something like a [1 0 0 0] to assess the PPI Hth C ************ Dr. Claus Lamm Research Associate Social Cognitive Neuroscience Department of Psychology The University of Chicago 5848 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: (773) 702-4661 Fax: (773) 702-0886 EMail: [log in to unmask] Web: http://scnl.org/claus.html -----Original Message----- From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shaquanda Jones Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:25 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [SPM] Nonsensical results from sample SPM5 data set. What are we doing wrong? Dear SPMers, We have been playing around with the sample SPM data set available here (attention to visual motion): http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~wpenny/datasets/attention.html We have analyzed the results using the directions listed in the "README_GLM_PPI.txt" data set (using the updated SPM5), but as you can see by the screen shot, we are obviously getting results that do not make sense (i.e. t values in the hundreds). We are probably doing some thing simple wrong, but it is not obvious to us yet what that is. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Sincerely, Shaqunada Nonsensical results from sample SPM5 data set. What are we doing wrong? ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ