Thanks Geng,

So I take it a user can set 3dTtest to one sample (i.e. NO group comparison) simply for the purposes of generating a random-effect map of a single group? Would this look like:

********************
if ( -e rewvsneu_controls+tlrc.BRIK ) then
rm -rf rewvsneu_controls+tlrc.*
endif

3dttest -base1 0 -prefix rewvsneu_controls \
-set2 \
../controls/as121402/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/ps012203/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/ac042902/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/cp061402/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/sc053102/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/sl072602/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/dn091102/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/jk040802/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/mc051702/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/sr121102/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/sg061402/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
../controls/gp021203/ttestreg+tlrc'[14]' \
*************

To get this result?

Also, your response to my second question (whether I could fairly use the -mean from 3dttest or 3danova to make groupwise maps for direct visual comparison and separate tables of activations) implies that all else being equal, the patient group with the greater number of subjects will have less variance with a higher n, and thus, the two -mean group maps would not be an apples-to-apples comparision. Is this your implication? That it is really necessary to recruit equal numbers of subjects in the two groups?

(The reason I persist in this inquiry is that it is really difficult to recruit one particular class of patient)

Jim B