External Email - Use Caution Hi Doug,
Nevermind to my first question! I read this post (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1646ymi0_yM9ab72e81bZdCKw_zNbXr9RihxDaiDVPq0_Qd4EXYgDmO56zQdi9l_AyV3uyyiURXHoYWQmiu56CbMuIGdZz8EH0gbsnVrAz9KwunZAwLzh0kh-jzVwHtlbEdd1ExEJYHT7o7JtUWg2GM484JTyL0VZJymRuGRyD0ag1nQ_0BPPjQHxPCqNHEU4Y_seBsq9XsUROgyR-bX-tHVXxhshVUHgneudw6tEB2lIVYfYrL3srRbjy1QN9Bq_e3_WaNCDhkXdixnae24i41HHYwJfn3KwsmNoZ2RxLoh3SMkXXwVntAewl8PeldBY0s3UxoEPiFbDdXXuJLUjlw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Ffreesurfer%40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmsg32235.html) and realized that we always include a subject-specific par file in each run for first-level analyses. However, I’m still confused about how to modify my paradigm file. I also need to model the trials of non-interest, so would it be as follows? 0 1 2.5 1.0 SelfOffset 0 2 2.5 1.0 SelfSlope (equal to subject’s rating of self-relevance) 0 3 2.5 1.0 ValenceOffset 0 4 2.5 3.0 ValenceSlope (equal to subject’s rating of valence) 2.5 0 2.5 1.0 FIXATION 5.0 1 2.5 1.0 SelfOffset 5.0 2 2.5 0 SelfSlope (equal to subject’s rating of self-relevance, in this case subject responded 0, or non-relevant) 5.0 3 2.5 1.0 ValenceOffset 5.0 4 2.5 2.0 ValenceSlope (equal to subject’s rating of valence) 7.5 5 2.5 1.0 OTHER Do these contrasts look correct to you? Self vs Fixation -a 1 -c 0 (main effect of self) Valence vs Fixation -a 3 -c 0 (main effect of valence) Self vs Valence -a 2 -a 4 (interaction between self x valence) Thank you so much for your help! Angela From: <freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> on behalf of Angela Fang <angf...@uw.edu> Reply-To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 1:02 PM To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] FSFAST first level covariates Thanks Doug. This wiki page is extremely helpful. However, my question is about individual subject responses. I could see how you could include a summary (e.g., average) value of the parametric variable across subjects in your “weight” column but it’s not clear to me how you could integrate individual subject responses to each word in the parametric modulation paradigm file? I’m imagining something like the FSGD file where a value is given for each subject, but for first-level analysis. We have a similar design as someone else who posted a similar question (https://secure-web.cisco.com/11nFbIrJYBqRI1W_4wY-HvfdEF3GG6xLL8So8t0i9yKbcElVyl_nJoDI6XedAGY2kKd_eP-dnsWeccOw2qajd375GRCeiUjqaXv3C7vOkrGEOiSiqfcPQ9y73ROdtl0jJIGemdoYQDd3GcX-dKx6qDwBcPE_qNlqxB0ZTcsDfTwK88OkoVtftMo1zKBWSiZBV9p0GO2erUcSoXtVI-AITDr9jULRDzVL_IzxtPdtuSBrYXMASRi7ex2oKftjJjyG_HMgygf_ULhSYIsHviihCwfx4uO5_zrvh8H84AxAsv33zsFjOaYeZ826JkD3E99hxrAKW3jYr3PjfN-zNZjQLJA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Ffreesurfer%40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmsg19957.html). We have an event-related experiment presenting trait adjectives in terms of whether they describe themselves (SELF condition) or someone else (OTHER condition). We are interested in testing a 2x2 ANOVA to examine an interaction between self-relevance x emotional valence. Assuming you can’t integrate individual subject responses to each word in the paradigm file, would we set it up as follows? “Usual” paradigm file: 0 1 2.5 1.0 SELF 2.5 0 2.5 1.0 FIXATION 5.0 1 2.5 1.0 SELF 7.5 2 2.5 1.0 OTHER Parametric modulation paradigm file: 0 1 2.5 1.0 SELFoffset 0 2 2.5 0.8 SELFslope 0 3 2.5 1.0 VALENCEoffset 0 4 2.5 2.0 VALENCEslope (where 0.8 reflects the percentage of time the word was endorsed as self-relevant and 2.0 is the average valence rating given for that word) And then create a contrast of 2 vs 4 to test the interaction? Would testing contrast 1 vs 0 be a test of the main effect of self-relevance and contrast 3 vs 0 the main effect of valence? Thanks so much for your help! Angela From: <freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> on behalf of "Douglas N. Greve" <dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> Reply-To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 10:25 AM To: "freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu" <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] FSFAST first level covariates Yes, see https://secure-web.cisco.com/1vlnv3wLgT6AWyuomHXVnJCfD3bAT8O6KYN-6kv4DVE_Kbs9JwI6WLDqHM7UN7cfJ1TP0eQKgCtR-KXf01ehJnqsV2jW5XmAXQr0QnOlGk4--dT54zncT2aoK1njMKmN9ayqCJ_tFar2vbW-JGXSkTcg6gdUPh_mngiG7m6SxtOvACvAKVHKQXKhe7-xx2QsCh6VDDkv9vQZNEkvMseg2bTElAE9tBG4Nyws1TeLoT6NRejWCSL4Hnke9bOJGLYp7gY561tg-SfXXlzjCNawo6cgCBAIxSsMzwLR8sWZndlid_nZ0aZqf85_HgcVXWUXEoKCbQCJ_Hs2G69KcjGr8yg/https%3A%2F%2Fsurfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Ffswiki%2FFsFastParametricModulation On 7/25/2022 6:56 PM, Angela Fang wrote: External Email - Use Caution Hi Freesurfer community, I have run participants through an event-related fMRI task in which subjects rate whether trait adjectives are descriptive of themselves or not, and afterwards asked them to rate each trait word on emotional valence. Is it possible to include these individual level subjective ratings of emotional valence as covariates in the first level contrast in FSFAST? If so, how? Thanks, Angela --- Angela Fang, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology University of Washington Lab website: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be http://secure-web.cisco.com/1QS44pCsFdNu8nsja7kOq-RG6npJErNuoBZVi-WfWdS_BXx3gtwJstnlLcz3fbc0ZtbAhJ5vBhxwZIslVRUMbRbAWVTEyZpVWPDCEPPclGZ6BhNiLM4xqTWKaGWhGW7j3jl27YKTe3T38nCEZMyQCNGpJENO2rep5naxzQMrBV8p9rE5s7Lfd7ITEbZZxOX7SEP8MfVCg8GBwU_8G8JzRI4PlZJeCAn5X45U6wiulxomjVG6zsCp3VBMgNPqs1SKecgQgjhf-aN0MUkaBimqduY_L4KEEcdNZlGXsFSX47l9JftmpEz3N1uPDOMHxfBER/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uwconnectlab.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1EJiZPvng9zcCEb0OA91-g6prvoE6x8E2RuCN3eRqnJvVyWnOZIhlVqHUDwmp2WEJbpju-V9f5K_n7JLkG1IXMgF6ntSJr6Aa91zEsfied2HyjVTkJZCXxMUYkbVQwHF0Z6PuuEgJy0xZF4iWLQMnW1WHJWnTXmRF8Gn92JXWkNX3veeq3YElwnE8vUuXUBgXGmmFtbKV7dJKfvdquLkJq0ApBJuwyNBrhKCoiBCQx4GIbuAfZ0iAsH5aL5xid2f1julAWTaA4EyB2BlTn9hUZcuoJNQPs89B-fNI4SA4inRY7YD67lmo-MehxlSgl0xO/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uwconnectlab.com> Pronouns: she, her, hers _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EIAJa3Vy8ViZunXEQlBqUeh89Z7hfnnmjv7DeFVsTGR2Flz9jn4bCu1dyuSCsHExp1254fEb-3HSfv_I0wnhZVOmxSlCgQ5W60PZLZ4fD7viMK9Vd4bddOCe3voLZt-bfajyrS85ddBk6F4OSk79smF2rXnEb0HPuZuwRHA1trnMRnDI6lw5vKTMZDtUpQ-uTFSKEWRF8-za7m4KgVPY3fvUsg_Vbe7BdVSF7LLb3z9K_jpTuId2AnuH3bM3sjJBCDBRuN-o1kc7VbRHE3c8w26Oh-Q_23VPqL5zPdyWBydZK2cexYD7WJa7ADaeuH6LHpS-9wtePP21o-y_utC43A/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer
_______________________________________________ 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 Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> . Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.
