Print

Print
Dear Darren,
 
Thanks a lot for your answer. The previous problem is fixed. However, When I reached the group level for PPI, there is another error showed up.
 
I applied a one sample T test for calculating PPI results in group level. But SPM reported the error as followed.
 
** The images do not all have same orientation and/or voxel sizes. **
The function assumes that a voxel in one image  corresponds exactly
with  the same voxel in another.   This is not a safe assumption if
the orientation information  in the headers or .mat files says that
the images are oriented differently. Please ensure that you process
all data correctly. For example, you may have realigned the images,
but not actually resliced them to be in voxel-wise alignment.
Here are the orientation matrices of the image volumes.   This list
can be used to determine which file(s) are causing the problem.
 
[-3.49966 0.0459541 -0.0235748 115.06; 0.0466327 3.49634 -0.21881 -126.408; -0.0144741 0.153372 4.99515 -74.2496]  C:\SPM\pid61\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49613 0.153575 0.0845861 106.904; 0.133083 3.37843 -1.29245 -123.886; 0.0968513 0.901463 4.82933 -88.4842]  C:\SPM\pid62\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.4748 0.38308 -0.243364 105.521; 0.409919 3.40273 -1.0136 -133.245; -0.0879624 0.724364 4.89013 -76.592]  C:\SPM\pid64\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49786 0.0190605 0.172506 113.109; -0.00295537 3.443 -0.898674 -116.18; 0.122213 0.62879 4.91555 -78.3036]  C:\SPM\pid65\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49778 -0.119536 -0.0510658 119.502; -0.107702 3.39901 -1.18247 -105.306; -0.0629842 0.826104 4.8579 -77.8746]  C:\SPM\pid66\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.48258 -0.342646 0.0928541 126.267; -0.348474 3.44503 -0.728867 -111.9; 0.0140284 0.514139 4.94572 -73.3012]  C:\SPM\pid67\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49713 -0.121132 0.105045 112.704; -0.137472 3.34068 -1.47839 -111.252; 0.0343681 1.03691 4.77528 -89.4481]  C:\SPM\pid68\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49938 -0.0447091 -0.0686903 113.602; -0.032787 3.41064 -1.12164 -123.487; -0.0568851 0.784556 4.87209 -75.8052]  C:\SPM\pid70\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.489 0.248027 -0.177001 108.387; 0.270923 3.38228 -1.22625 -123.757; -0.0589047 0.865265 4.84407 -81.4831]  C:\SPM\pid71\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49938 -0.0191901 0.0903303 114.091; -0.036101 3.36037 -1.39726 -118.107; 0.0553459 0.978559 4.79995 -90.2079]  C:\SPM\pid91\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49954 0.0440987 -0.0512441 115.54; 0.0509771 3.41187 -1.11261 -122.278; -0.0251547 0.779247 4.87437 -88.5882]  C:\SPM\pid92\PPI\con_0001.img
[-3.49934 -0.00133802 0.0971064 111.769; -0.0189965 3.37919 -1.30204 -116.678; 0.0652798 0.911623 4.82652 -85.8937]  C:\SPM\pid93\PPI\con_0001.img
 

Error running job: Error using ==> spm_check_orientations
The orientations etc must be identical for this procedure.
In file "C:\SPM\spm5\spm_check_orientations.m" (v982), function "spm_check_orientations" at line 47.
In file "C:\SPM\spm5\spm_config_factorial_design.m" (v1601), function "run_stats" at line 1380.
 
 
 
Does it mean that in my preprocessing step, the fMRI imaging did not realign or orient enough? But no error happened before in any other second level analysis (e.g, one sample T test or ANOVA) from the data of this group.
 
Thanks a lot in advance!
 
Best regards,
Ning

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Darren Gitelman
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] PPI problem

Dear Ning

For unknown reasons with some datasets there is a problem with sparse matrix inversion of the covariance matrices. You can fix this by editing spm_PEB.m

The last line should be something like the following:
    C  = inv(C + speye(length(C))*exp(-32));

Change -32 to -16.

You can find previous postings to the list about this if you search for spm_PEB.
see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=SPM;42d4e5fb.0708

Darren

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Ning Ma <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello,
 
Thanks a lot for both of your answers. The problem was fixed. But now when I reached to the second step, create PPI variable, SPM showed another error,
 
Warning: Matrix is close to singular or badly scaled.
         Results may be inaccurate. RCOND = 1.266417e-020.
> In spm_PEB>spm_inv at 371
  In spm_PEB at 244
  In spm_peb_ppi at 325
 
Does this mean that my design is not good enough to conduct PPI analysis?
 
Thanks!
 
Ning

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [SPM] PPI problem

Ning,

(1) You can only adjust when you have an F-test;
(2) Did you move the input images (or SPM.mat file) after doing the first level model (e.g. SPM.xY.VY.fname no longer points to the correct locations of the files)?

Best Regards, Donald McLaren
=================
D.G. McLaren, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA
Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School
Office: (773) 406-2464
=====================
This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773) 406-2464 or email.

 
From: [log in to unmask]>junhai xu
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:23 AM
To: Ning Ma
Subject: Re: [SPM] PPI problem

I got the same problem when I analyzed our data. Maybe you moved your original data or changed the path of your data.
You can load the SPM.mat, and find the right path.

Best,
Junhai

2011/3/4 Ning Ma <[log in to unmask]>
 
Dear SPM users,
 
Recently, I started to use SPM5 to conducted PPI analysis and encountered a problem.
 
After selected the SPM.mat from single subject data, I went to ROI and right click to get Local Max. And then I pressed 'eigenvariate' and name the VOI. After inputting VOI name, SPM skipped the step of adjust data, directly jump to VOI definition step. After inputting the radius of the VOI, SPM reported the error as
 
spm_mip_ui: Jumped 6.00mm from [  0,  60,  10],
   to nearest local maxima at [ -4,  62,  14]
??? Cant open image file.
 
Error in ==> spm_get_data at 41
 Y(i,:) = spm_sample_vol(V(i),XYZ(1,:),XYZ(2,:),XYZ(3,:),0);
 
Error in ==> spm_regions at 182
y        = spm_get_data(SPM.xY.VY,xSPM.XYZ(:,Q));
 
??? Error while evaluating uicontrol Callback.
 
How to fix this problem? Thanks a lot in advance!
 
Best Regards,
Ning Ma




--
Darren Gitelman, MD
710 N. Lake Shore Dr., 1122
Chicago, IL 60611
Ph: (312) 908-8614
Fax: (312) 908-5073