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  

|
October 07, 2005 03:45PM
The disadvantage of your method 1 is quite fatal, disallowing you to test (Stimtype A correct – Stimtype B correct).

The weighting strategy in method 3 is a little problematic to me: any evidence on the proposition that BOLD signal is proportional to the rate of correct responses?

I don't see anything wrong by modeling with 6 separate conditions (method 2). In the case of (Stimtype A all – Stimtype B all), it is really a general linear test instead of a constrast (all coefficients adding up to 0), and the inequality of 1's and -1's in the test is not a problem at all. So rest assured because it is essentially a reduced model vs. full model if you peek into the details of option -glt in 3dDeconvolve.

Gang
Subject Author Posted

Collapsing conditions in matrix files

George Cheney October 07, 2005 02:10PM

Re: Collapsing conditions in matrix files

Gang Chen October 07, 2005 03:45PM

Re: Collapsing conditions in matrix files

George Cheney October 07, 2005 05:46PM

Re: Collapsing conditions in matrix files

debbie October 10, 2005 11:59AM

Re: Collapsing conditions in matrix files

Jim Eliassen October 10, 2005 12:28PM

Re: Collapsing conditions in matrix files

Gang Chen October 12, 2005 12:04PM