BTW, if at first step I run conjunction analysis with contrasts A > C and B >C; then, for ROIs resultant from conjunction analysis analysis, I run MVPA using the same data. Can I be accused by N.Kriegeskorte in double-dipping crime?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Vadim Axel wrote: > > > Thanks for the answer. > > Suppose we trust 100% the conjunction analysis. Why do you think MVPA > ROI > > analysis result will require more analytic support? If I have an ROI > > within a network of regions, which decodes beyond chance, is it not > an > > evidence that this region contains the relevant information? > > such a statement ("region contains the relevant information") indeed > would have sufficient support from "MVPA ROI analysis"... I was > discussing those additional statements, which I could have just > misunderstood/mistreated: such as "common network" and "the difference > between the two lies within this network" which sounded to me trying to > dismiss the possibility that there could also be another location > supporting this hypothesis. > > -- > Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. > http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org > Senior Research Associate, Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. > Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 > Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 > WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-exppsy-pymvpa >
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ExpPsy-PyMVPA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-exppsy-pymvpa
