Hi, Sondos-

Re.:

Quote

for the first suggestion: 1) from the individual-level results, only keep ROIs that are common across subjects.
I was trying to do that, but I was saying how about in the case where some individual-level results contain fewer number of ROI's compared to the group? Even if I try to reduce the number of ROI's for each subject so that only the common ROI's are left. What could end up happening is that one of the subjects has only one ROI.. so in that case do you suggest I reduce the number of ROIs to match that? Even though the group-level ROI's have 5 ROI's?

yep, that just seems like an inherent difficult-- FMRI data is noisy, and so individual subject results can vary a lot. Using the individual subject ROIs can lead to such difficulties.

Re.:

Quote

and for the second suggestion: 2) map the group-level ROIs to each subject and use those for tracking/netcorring.
In this case wouldn't we be losing some activation information in the process? Every brain is shaped differently and activates differently, so if we were to overlay the group results onto the individual subject level, we may be losing valuable information.

Well, isn't that an inherent difficulty with alignment? ICA is finding group average results anyways. Any method of combining subjects for a group analysis will lose some individual information in the "group test" part, won't it?

Re.:

Quote

So what I've been trying to do is 1. apply melodic (GICA) and get from that the independent components of the entire group of subjects. I then perform 3dMatch on the group level. After that I perform 3dROIMaker for the group in order to get different number of ROI's for each network.

Makes sense

Re.:

Quote

Once I have the ROI's for each network at the group level, I perform dual regression using my 3dROIMaker output and the individual subjects. I then peform 3dROIMaker once again, but this time to convert the individual-level z-score maps obtained from dual regression into ROI's at the individual level. Here is where my problem comes in and the number of ROI's vary across subjects.

I don't understand this part. Didn't you get your ROIs from the group ICA stage just above?

Re.:

Quote

So from this step, that all the DMN networks for each individual level subject contains 5 ROI's for instance. And if they contain over 5 ROI's, I remove the extra ROI's. But then what should I do if there are fewer than 5 ROI's for each subject? let's say some subjects have 4, 3 or even 2 ROI's?

Going back to the initial difficulties with the first method mentioned above, I think using individual-derived ROIs in this way might be tricky. ICA results on noisy individual subject data will likely vary a lot.

--pt