Show all posts by user
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
Page 2 of 2
Pages: 12
Results 31 - 37 of 37
Whoops. My error there. Those numbers are not from -automask...I saw that error and corrected the post but forgot the change the field there (accurate post below).
3dFWHMx -mask reho_testmask+tlrc test_reho_smooth+tlrc
++ 3dFWHMx: AFNI version=AFNI_2011_12_21_1014 (Sep 12 2012) [64-bit]
++ Authored by: The Bob
++ Number of voxels in mask = 155321
10.5811 10.9723 9.77717
The issue
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
That's an idea, but my question is which residual is the correct residual to use? pre-ReHo residual (generated from afni_proc.py) or residuals post-ReHo.
I took the liberty of testing out what each looks like-
When doing FWHMx on the residual+tlrc we get:
3dFWHMx -automask -input errts.1080+tlrc
smoothness = 3.80294 4.109 2.97068
When using 3dReHo on the errts we get:
3dReHo -p
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
By "large amount of blur" I meant exactly that - that the ReHo estimation affects the exact smoothness of the data. Most of the recent ReHo papers acquire ReHo and then subsequently blur, since the original Zhang (sp) article illustrated that burring pre-reho acquisition may introduce false-positive clusters.
I wonder if using standard alphasim/clustersim multiple comparisons correc
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
I have been experimenting with 3dReHo and it appears that using the ReHo command creates a large amount of blur, and I am wonding if that is accurate? My processing stream follows the pubs out there, acquiring ReHo and then subsequently blurring.
My commands are:
3dReHo -prefix reho_test -nneigh 27 -inset reho_rest_blur+tlrc
3dmerge -1blur_fwhm 4.0 -doall -prefix reho_blur_rest reho+tlrc
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
I'll do just that. Many thanks Rick - it is much appreciated.
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
To follow up (apologies for the delay) - my design has a 2 group analysis (exposure + and exposure -). Could I take the output file Headmotion.1D and use the x,y,z,roll,pitch,yaw columns in an ANOVA to compare groups? Or is there another adjustment I need to make before performing that comparison?
Thank you!
N
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
Sorry to be unclear.
I have two groups of equal size, exposure + and exposure -, and I am comparing maps of Z scores of connectivity. Using AlphaSim I've determined the cluster size that reflects my desired alpha level appropriate for dataset dimensions and kernel size.
I'm trying to compare differences in Z scores between the two groups, implementing the alphasim-determined
by
Noah
-
AFNI Message Board
Page 2 of 2
Pages: 12