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  

|
January 31, 2017 03:53PM
Hi,

thank you for your quick answer.

>> Concerning Fisher transforms. AFNI proposed that we do it before running seed-based analysis.
> No, that's not true. Fisher transformation is typically performed after the seed-based correlation analysis at the individual level, but before group analysis. Such practice is typically adopted in the whole neuroimaging community.

Yes, sorry, I wrote too fast, that is indeed what we are doing.

>> I have come upon some situations where I think it creates false results. Under the seed, the correlation
>> coefficients should be really high, because the seed should be well connected with itself. Let's say ~1.
>> However, after the Fisher correction, in my case, it becomes 1.6 in one group, and 1.1 in another, and it
>> results in significant difference in the seed region between the two groups. Obviously, I can't state that
>> connection of the seed with itself is different in both groups!
> Without knowing your analysis steps and without access to your data, it's hard to tell why and how you got what you're seeing.

We are doing a typical uber_subject preprocessing, on two groups (patient subjects vs healthy controls), on resting state data, 5 minutes.
The only thing that could be tricky is that the healthy subjects come from a different data bank (different scanner, not exactly the same TR). We are only exploring the feasibility of such a study. So far, the results follow the literature, so I would think that it won't be a problem.
I did the seed-based with 3dfim+ with 5mm seeds (voxels are 3.5x3.5x3.5mm), then fisher transform, and then 3dttest++ on the two groups.


>> Then how do I know that Fisher transforming the data is a good idea?
> Fisher transformation is not something opaque: [en.wikipedia.org]

Yes, thank you, I will read it carefully. But I am not worried about the mathematical side of the fisher formula, but rather it's effect on seed-based analysis on fMRI data.


Should I just ignore results that are close to the seed position? Is it something that happens a lot?
Subject Author Posted

Fisher transform

Leo September 26, 2016 05:54PM

Re: Fisher transform

ptaylor September 26, 2016 10:48PM

Re: Fisher transform

Leo September 27, 2016 12:42PM

Re: Fisher transform

ptaylor September 27, 2016 01:08PM

Re: Fisher transform

Leo September 27, 2016 02:30PM

Re: Fisher transform

Leo September 28, 2016 05:17PM

Re: Fisher transform

gang September 28, 2016 05:34PM

Re: Fisher transform

Leo September 29, 2016 11:39AM

Re: Fisher transform

gang September 29, 2016 04:22PM

Re: Fisher transform

Leo September 29, 2016 05:35PM

Re: Fisher transform

gang September 30, 2016 01:31PM

Re: Fisher transform

Emmanuelle Renauld January 31, 2017 10:50AM

Re: Fisher transform

gang January 31, 2017 11:59AM

Re: Fisher transform

Emmanuelle Renauld January 31, 2017 03:53PM

Re: Fisher transform

gang February 01, 2017 11:19AM