Those look like they are the same coding scheme. What is different? You
can only have one offset. The Self vs Valence -a 2 -a 4 is not testing
for an interaction. If you want an interaction you have to create a new
variable which is SelfRating*ValenceRating.
On 8/10/2022 2:38 PM, Angela Fang wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Hello,
Just re-sending my question below. If I have a variable with 2 levels
(yes/no) and another variable that is continuous, based on this post
(*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be*
https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg19957.html
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1S2s08xk6_r2FFsEB5S1KdOcfq6G8ToJwyZuNFONdwgOYd87JJkB-uznJW2pelg24KQwX3lweVOmFs99TCKitjbJOqKWgEH_UW7wir5JQ113csODerDntanBrEibOdt6Mxs2QeQ5D7n69Ds6NaOSOJIbLFeMjuoaTXCkNccNydn7jvjmVd0zW2YhEXG9JtLxMNVIYt8q48ZK0sJUt8sjTP6xuCzA1pzB19MUHA078Zgygtns0YVgn1n5Sg41ZbVZ3jWciX5ZF34AejW5nWj1Z4mWO1Xyd_7RwNbKkVMPeDwG6K9W59gzBf_t0G-AzmUhxGC8zfKM0bxA9hhZv4GR2BQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Ffreesurfer%40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmsg19957.html>),
it sounds like I should code as follows:
1. SelfOffset
2. Self-ValenceSlope (would the weight in the 4^th column reflect the
value of self multiplied by the value of valence for this
participant?)
3. NonSelfOffset
4. NonSelf-ValenceSlope
If the other way of modifying the paradigm file is also acceptable to
test the interaction (as I describe below), that would also be helpful
to know.
Thanks!
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: *Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35 PM
*To: *Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Subject: *Re: [Freesurfer] FSFAST first level covariates
* External Email - Use Caution *
Hi Doug,
Nevermind to my first question! I read this post (*MailScanner has
detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming
to be*
https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg32235.html
<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
(*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be*
https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg19957.html
<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 *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be*
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsFastParametricModulation
<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* www.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
*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be*
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
<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
_______________________________________________
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.
