Hi Corinna,
In each iteration, the mc-full replaces your data (--y) with white
gaussian noise, smoothes it, then computes the GLM and p-values from the
t or F-test. The mc-z ignores your data entirely and creates a single
frame of WGN in each iteration, smoothes it, rescales it back to a z,
then converts the z to a p. This is much faster because it only has one
frame vs how many you have in your data. It is less accurate because a
p-value map from a smoothed z-map is not the same as computing the glm.
It has been a while, but I remember the mc-z as being more conservative,
but it is much much faster.
doug
On 2/3/15 10:12 AM, Corinna Bauer wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering what the specific reasons might be for choosing to run
the mc-z simulation compared to mc-full? What are the pros and cons
for each method for looking at group morphometry differences?
Thanks
Corinna
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
