Hi all,
Thanks again for the continued help. I think the skews are for the reasons
suggested here… I'm seeing them in a couple subjects in the positive
direction as well as the negative, and I've made quite certain that my
preprocessing is correct. I'll be mindful of the histos and, for now,
continue on with analyses!
Best and thanks again,
Mike
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Francisco Pereira
francisco.pere...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:04 PM, J.A. Etzel jet...@artsci.wustl.edu
wrote:
Non-independence is definitely a big issue (not the only one,
unfortunately).
It's most definitely an issue. Michael Hanke helped me think about
this and we tried to suggest one possibility for testing for the
presence of that in page 7 of
http://www.princeton.edu/~fpereira/Papers/searchmight.pdf
(pardon the self reference)
There will be code to help diagnose this in the next version of
Searchmight. That said, I think that this is more of a problem in
terms of making results that are marginal appear significant, rather
than introducing bias one way or another.
doesn't seem unusual to have a few subjects with below-chance
classification
in large numbers of voxels; I don't think the current methods deal with
this (or even explain it) very well.
Right, with a large number of voxels where the underlying accuracy is
at chance level a fraction of will them will appear much worse than
chance, just as a fraction will appear much better than chance. With
enough subjects...
Francisco
___
Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA mailing list
Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-exppsy-pymvpa
___
Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA mailing list
Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-exppsy-pymvpa