 |
 |
Hi - you're right that easythresh isn't exactly the same, because it uses the zstat image and not the residuals to estimate smoothness. However in my experience it isn't ever very different. I suspect that something's not comparable here - for example, are both approaches using differently pre-masked images? How do the smoothness estimations and voxel counts compare in the two cases? Cheers. On 24 Feb 2009, at 08:48, David Shirinyan wrote: > I have been noticing this same issue but I have very large > differences (ten > fold) in the p values. FEAT output thresholded at Z=2 p=.05 > corresponds to > an easythresh p threshold of p=.5. Is this large difference still > due to > smoothing estimation? Given this large discrepancy, how can I make > use of > easythresh? Are the easythresh images at p=.5 usable? Is easythresh > unusable with my given dataset? > Thank you in advance. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717) [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------