AFNI Message Board

Dear AFNI users-

We are very pleased to announce that the new AFNI Message Board framework is up! Please join us at:

https://discuss.afni.nimh.nih.gov

Existing user accounts have been migrated, so returning users can login by requesting a password reset. New users can create accounts, as well, through a standard account creation process. Please note that these setup emails might initially go to spam folders (esp. for NIH users!), so please check those locations in the beginning.

The current Message Board discussion threads have been migrated to the new framework. The current Message Board will remain visible, but read-only, for a little while.

Sincerely, AFNI HQ

History of AFNI updates  

|
August 15, 2016 11:48AM
Hi all,

I am running a within-subjects analysis and would like to examine the effect of a covariate at each level of the Valence factor (2 levels). I have centered the "Change" and "Rating" covariates of interest for each level of Valence separately. Thus, I am wondering whether I need to specify the covariate center for each level or if I can leave it blank. It seems that since I have already removed the mean from them separately that I wouldn't need to include the mean value, right?

So I should be using gltCode 3 and 4 as seen below?

3dLME -prefix 3dLME_Valence*Change*State*Rating \
-mask "/Volumes/Research/CLPS_Amso_Lab/Andrew/FYP/MRI/mask/mask75mni+tlrc.BRIK" \
-model 'Valence*Change*State*Rating' \
-qVars "Change,Accuracy,State,Rating,Age,CB" \
-qVarCenters '0.0016,0.0016,34.75,0.0008,21.67,1.54' \
-num_glt 4 \
-gltLabel 1 'Positive-ChangeEff_cent' -gltCode 1 'Valence : 1*Positive Change : -3.42' \
-gltLabel 2 'Negative-ChangeEff_cent' -gltCode 2 'Valence : 1*Negative Change : 3.25' \
-gltLabel 3 'Positive-ChangeEff' -gltCode 3 'Valence : 1*Positive Change : ' \
-gltLabel 4 'Negative-ChangeEff' -gltCode 4 'Valence : 1*Negative Change : ' \
-ranEff '~1' \
-SS_type 3 \
-jobs 6 \
-dataTable \
Subj Valence Change Accuracy State Rating Age CB InputFile \
3086 Positive 9.42 0.37 47 -1.625 18.47 1 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3086/3086_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2] \
3097 Positive -6.58 9.37 28 0.375 29.65 1 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3097/3097_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2] \
3155 Positive -0.58 3.87 31 0.375 18.65 1 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3155/3155_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2] \
.
.
.

3250 Negative -0.25 -5.75 20 1.46 20.02 2 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3250/3250_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2] \
3251 Negative 12.75 -4.75 24 0.46 19.95 2 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3251/3251_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2] \
3308 Negative -3.25 -2.65 31 -0.54 19.33 2 ${rd}/data/brain/orig/3308/3308_glm_bucket+tlrc.BRIK[2]
Subject Author Posted

3dLME GLT clarification

aclynn11 August 15, 2016 11:48AM

Re: 3dLME GLT clarification

gang August 15, 2016 03:32PM