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  

|
December 05, 2018 08:53AM
Hi! Sorry for a multi-question post but since they are related I felt bad posting several separate posts.

I have tried the different approaches to apply multiple comparisons error corrections and ran into some questions:

1) Approach1: 3dFWHMx + 3dClustSim. Detrend?
To use 3dFWHMx -acf -mask GM+tlrc. with our without -detrend does, according to the documentation depend on if your data has been de-trended during pre-proc or not. So a data-set that has been detrended (I think via 3ddespike) does not have to be de-trended, and if you do it anyway it should not make a big difference.

When I run (on detrended data, as far as I know)
a) 3dFWHMx -ACF NULL -mask GM+tlrc -input errts.sjb*.fanaticor+tlrc and
b) 3dFWHMx -detrend -ACF NULL -mask GM+tlrc -input errts.sjb*.fanaticor+tlrc and
The acf-parameters become:
a) 0.5581857308 3.1542607692 10.8851776923 (no detrend)
b) 0.7097887692 3.1102161538 11.3432861538 (detrend)

Why would the difference of acf parameters be so big? b) has a much higher first value, while the second two values are bit lower. The average of the 3 values is higher for the detrended data). This affect the 3dClustSim output (see below)

2. 3dClustSim: different ACF params
If I use the two different ACF-sets above I obviously get different tables. What we see is more conservative table values (you need bigger clusters for a given p-value) for the acf with the average lower values. Is this reasonable? Aren't high acf values representing higher spatial smoothness / autocorrelations giving a higher risk for false positives and would then give a more conservative table? Or do I think about it wrong? The 4th ACF value (not showed) is a bit lower for the -detrended data.

Output (bi-sided, NN=1, but same trend for all settings):
No Detrend
3dClustSim -acf 0.5581857308 3.1542607692 10.8851776923 -mask DMN_network_anat_bool_fit+tlrc
# CLUSTER SIZE THRESHOLD(pthr,alpha) in Voxels
# -NN 1  | alpha = Prob(Cluster >= given size)
#  pthr  | .10000 .05000 .02000 .01000
# ------ | ------ ------ ------ ------
 0.050000   101.4  121.6  154.5  183.0
 0.020000    45.4   55.4   69.4   81.1
 0.010000    28.0   33.8   42.4   49.4
 0.005000    18.3   22.1   27.6   32.4
 0.002000    11.1   13.6   17.2   19.6
 0.001000     8.0    9.7   12.2   14.4
 0.000500     5.8    7.2    9.1   10.6
 0.000200     3.9    4.9    6.3    7.5
 0.000100     3.0    3.8    4.9    5.7

Detrend
3dClustSim -acf 0.7097887692 3.1102161538 11.3432861538 -mask DMN_network_anat_bool_fit+tlrc.
# CLUSTER SIZE THRESHOLD(pthr,alpha) in Voxels
# -NN 1  | alpha = Prob(Cluster >= given size)
#  pthr  | .10000 .05000 .02000 .01000
# ------ | ------ ------ ------ ------
 0.050000    72.1   87.4  105.4  125.2
 0.020000    33.8   39.9   48.7   56.5
 0.010000    21.4   25.3   30.7   34.9
 0.005000    14.4   16.9   20.6   23.6
 0.002000     9.2   11.0   13.2   15.3
 0.001000     6.8    8.1    9.8   11.1
 0.000500     5.1    6.1    7.8    9.0
 0.000200     3.7    4.5    5.5    6.4
 0.000100     2.8    3.5    4.4    5.1

Should not the higher acf-values give a more conservative threshold since the smoothness is higher? It's just the first value that is higher for detrend, but that is where the biggest difference is.

3. What thresholds to use:
I'm I right that even though the 3dClustsim gives a cluster size for e.g. p > 0.05 you should not use that. You should only use the p-values < 0.002 (ideally 0.001) with this approach?

4. I also want to use ETAC but I don't get the expected output.
my command
3dttest++ -paired -prefix AvP_opt_anaticor -mask $mask_anat -ETAC -ETAC_blur 4 6 -ETAC_opt NN=1:hpow=0:sid=1:pthr=0.01,0.05,0.002,0.01:name=robin \
a) what is the meaning of hpow? Did not understand the manual.

b) According to the manual I should get
P+tlrc.HEAD                         normal 3dttest++ output from input datasets
P.B4.0.nii                          3dttest++ output from blurred datasets
P.B7.0.nii                            (4 and 7 mm, respectively)
Px.B4.0.5percent.txt                voxel-wise threshold list for a variety
Px.B7.0.5percent.txt                  of global FPRs, for blurs 4 and 7
Px.N.ETAC.mthresh.B4.0.5perc.nii    Multi-threshold datasets for blur=4 and =7,
Px.N.ETAC.mthresh.B7.0.5perc.nii      for overall 5% global false positive rate
Px.N.ETACmask.2sid.5perc.nii.gz     Binary (0 or 1) mask of 'active voxels'
PX.N.ETACmaskALL.2sid.5perc.nii.gz  Multi-volume mask showing which ETAC
But I don't get the Px files, I get a lot of TT, files (70 files of this kind TT.c7xJqG0BM99.0000.minmax.1D) and these:
AvP_opt_anaticor.B4.0.nii                                     
AvP_opt_anaticor.B6.0.nii                                     
AvP_opt_anaticor+tlrc.BRIK      
AvP_opt_anaticor+tlrc.HEAD
globalETAC.mthresh.TT.c7xJqG0BM99.robin.ETAC.B4.0.5perc.niml
globalETAC.mthresh.TT.c7xJqG0BM99.robin.ETAC.B6.0.5perc.niml
TT.c7xJqG0BM99.robin.ETACmaskALL.global.1neg.5perc.nii.gz
TT.c7xJqG0BM99.robin.ETACmaskALL.global.1pos.5perc.nii.gz
TT.c7xJqG0BM99.robin.ETACmask.global.1pos.5perc.nii.gz
Is that expected?

c) If I want to see if get any clusters surviving the 5% FDR limit, which file should I check? I get the files 1neg 1pos... Should I cluster or is that included in the masks?

Thanks a bunch! feel free to just anser any of the sub-questions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2018 02:40PM by Robin.
Subject Author Posted

3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

Robin December 05, 2018 08:53AM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

RWCox December 14, 2018 10:17AM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

Robin January 07, 2019 09:31AM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

Robin January 21, 2019 02:56PM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

rick reynolds January 28, 2019 01:15PM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

Robin February 04, 2019 09:07AM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

rick reynolds February 05, 2019 11:04AM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

Robin February 05, 2019 12:22PM

Re: 3dttest++: Clustsim and ETAC questions

rick reynolds February 05, 2019 12:42PM