 |
 |
w, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General<br> Hospital and Harvard Medical School<br> Office: (773) 406-2464<br> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br> This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain<br> PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED<br> and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity<br> named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient<br> or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended<br> recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of<br> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use,<br> disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the<br> contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be<br> unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please<br> immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773) 406-2464 or<br> email.<br> <div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br> <br> <br> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Pilar Archila-Suerte<br> <<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<= /a>> wrote:<br> > Dear SPM list,<br> > In setting ANOVAs in SPM, do the subject files need to be in the same = order<br> > under each cell?<br> > I just ran two trial trial batches, one with the same order of subject= s and<br> > one with a different order. The areas of activity are very similar but= the<br> > order in which the areas show up as more or less intensive did vary.<b= r> > Any insight as to how SPM does this? should I stick to the same order = of<br> > subjects for clarity?<br> > Thanks,<br> > Pilar A .</div></div></blockquote></div> </div> --0016367b60fa2fded8049d0fcf11--