Gang Chen wrote:
> This seems to create some inconvenience for estimating FWHM
> kernel sizes. As multiple comparison correction makes sense
> only in the original EPI space, estimating FWHM would have to
> be done on the EPI dataset instead of tlrc tranformed one. And
> smoothing on the tlrc'ed data after individual subject analysis
> makes the process a little inconvenient.

Do you mean that the input file for estimating fwhm should not be in talairach space and befor normalized to TT? This value should then be feed into alphasim and applied to group analysis finally?

> Ideally you would estimate smoothness for each
> condition/constrast separately based on each condition or
> contrast's EPI data.

Dose the fwhm may be different for different condition when averaging across subjects? So it is nesessary to estimate fwhm for different condition respectively?




> Use the input files
> right before 3dDeconvolve or condition/contrast maps in
> original space with EPI resolution right out of 3dDeconvolve.

What do you mean by this? The original dataset before adwarp is 3d+time,
this kind of file should be averaged across subjects before 3dDeconvolve and used for estimating fwhm?


> If there is not much spatial
> correlation in the original signal, use the bluring kernel size
> (in 3dmerge) for isotropic option -fwhm.

I can not understand this well. Do you assume beforehand that the spatial correlatioon is at some extent and as a criteria?