Re: [Freesurfer] Between Task Analysis
Thank you for your response! We decided to run an isxconcat-sess on both analyses (day1 and day2), and we used fscalc to do day1 - day2. Now we're trying to run mri_glmfit. However, the FSGD files we used before either specified day1 or day2 sessions. How do we create an FSGD file now that each data point is actually 'day1 - day2' for one subject and not one of the pre-existing subject folders? Thanks! --Mandy Nagy On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Douglas N Greve gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: In principle you can do it either way and get the same result. From a practical standpoint, it is probably easier to do the day2-day1 subtraction, then do the group analysis. doug Mandy Nagy wrote: Hi all, We are attempting to do an analysis for subjects that came in on two different days to perform two similar but different tasks (one learning condition, one control). Each of the tasks is structured such that there are 30sec rest epochs alternating with 30sec active (typing) epochs for a total of 12.5 minutes (the task begins and ends with rest). We are trying to compare the typing period for the control task to the typing period for the learning task. We currently have first-level analyses of each of the tasks (active condition vs. null rest condition). Can we do within-subject comparisons and then do a group analysis on those? Or did we need to concatenate the learning and control conditions in the first-level analysis? If that is the case, how would you suggest that we do this? Paradigm file: 0 0 30 1 Rest 30 1 30 1 Typing 60 0 30 1 Rest 90 1 30 1 Typing 120 0 30 1 Rest 150 1 30 1 Typing 180 0 30 1 Rest 210 1 30 1 Typing 240 0 30 1 Rest 270 1 30 1 Typing 300 0 30 1 Rest 330 1 30 1 Typing 360 0 30 1 Rest 390 1 30 1 Typing 420 0 30 1 Rest 450 1 30 1 Typing 480 0 30 1 Rest 510 1 30 1 Typing 540 0 30 1 Rest 570 1 30 1 Typing 600 0 30 1 Rest 630 1 30 1 Typing 660 0 30 1 Rest 690 1 30 1 Typing 720 0 30 1 Rest Thanks in advance! --Mandy Nagy ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html 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. ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Re: [Freesurfer] Between Task Analysis
You mean you have used the day1 recon-all with the day1 functional (and same for day 2)? I would probably pick an anatomical from one day and use them with the functionals for both days. You can use either FSGD file assuming that the class membership and continuous variables are the same. If you're just doing an OSGM, then you don't even need a an FSGD file (but it does not hurt). doug Mandy Nagy wrote: Thank you for your response! We decided to run an isxconcat-sess on both analyses (day1 and day2), and we used fscalc to do day1 - day2. Now we're trying to run mri_glmfit. However, the FSGD files we used before either specified day1 or day2 sessions. How do we create an FSGD file now that each data point is actually 'day1 - day2' for one subject and not one of the pre-existing subject folders? Thanks! --Mandy Nagy On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Douglas N Greve gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: In principle you can do it either way and get the same result. From a practical standpoint, it is probably easier to do the day2-day1 subtraction, then do the group analysis. doug Mandy Nagy wrote: Hi all, We are attempting to do an analysis for subjects that came in on two different days to perform two similar but different tasks (one learning condition, one control). Each of the tasks is structured such that there are 30sec rest epochs alternating with 30sec active (typing) epochs for a total of 12.5 minutes (the task begins and ends with rest). We are trying to compare the typing period for the control task to the typing period for the learning task. We currently have first-level analyses of each of the tasks (active condition vs. null rest condition). Can we do within-subject comparisons and then do a group analysis on those? Or did we need to concatenate the learning and control conditions in the first-level analysis? If that is the case, how would you suggest that we do this? Paradigm file: 0 0 30 1 Rest 30 1 30 1 Typing 60 0 30 1 Rest 90 1 30 1 Typing 120 0 30 1 Rest 150 1 30 1 Typing 180 0 30 1 Rest 210 1 30 1 Typing 240 0 30 1 Rest 270 1 30 1 Typing 300 0 30 1 Rest 330 1 30 1 Typing 360 0 30 1 Rest 390 1 30 1 Typing 420 0 30 1 Rest 450 1 30 1 Typing 480 0 30 1 Rest 510 1 30 1 Typing 540 0 30 1 Rest 570 1 30 1 Typing 600 0 30 1 Rest 630 1 30 1 Typing 660 0 30 1 Rest 690 1 30 1 Typing 720 0 30 1 Rest Thanks in advance! --Mandy Nagy ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html 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. -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
[Freesurfer] Between Task Analysis
Hi all, We are attempting to do an analysis for subjects that came in on two different days to perform two similar but different tasks (one learning condition, one control). Each of the tasks is structured such that there are 30sec rest epochs alternating with 30sec active (typing) epochs for a total of 12.5 minutes (the task begins and ends with rest). We are trying to compare the typing period for the control task to the typing period for the learning task. We currently have first-level analyses of each of the tasks (active condition vs. null rest condition). Can we do within-subject comparisons and then do a group analysis on those? Or did we need to concatenate the learning and control conditions in the first-level analysis? If that is the case, how would you suggest that we do this? Paradigm file: 0 0 30 1 Rest 30 1 30 1 Typing 60 0 30 1 Rest 90 1 30 1 Typing 120 0 30 1 Rest 150 1 30 1 Typing 180 0 30 1 Rest 210 1 30 1 Typing 240 0 30 1 Rest 270 1 30 1 Typing 300 0 30 1 Rest 330 1 30 1 Typing 360 0 30 1 Rest 390 1 30 1 Typing 420 0 30 1 Rest 450 1 30 1 Typing 480 0 30 1 Rest 510 1 30 1 Typing 540 0 30 1 Rest 570 1 30 1 Typing 600 0 30 1 Rest 630 1 30 1 Typing 660 0 30 1 Rest 690 1 30 1 Typing 720 0 30 1 Rest Thanks in advance! --Mandy Nagy ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] Between Task Analysis
In principle you can do it either way and get the same result. From a practical standpoint, it is probably easier to do the day2-day1 subtraction, then do the group analysis. doug Mandy Nagy wrote: Hi all, We are attempting to do an analysis for subjects that came in on two different days to perform two similar but different tasks (one learning condition, one control). Each of the tasks is structured such that there are 30sec rest epochs alternating with 30sec active (typing) epochs for a total of 12.5 minutes (the task begins and ends with rest). We are trying to compare the typing period for the control task to the typing period for the learning task. We currently have first-level analyses of each of the tasks (active condition vs. null rest condition). Can we do within-subject comparisons and then do a group analysis on those? Or did we need to concatenate the learning and control conditions in the first-level analysis? If that is the case, how would you suggest that we do this? Paradigm file: 0 0 30 1 Rest 301 30 1 Typing 600 30 1 Rest 901 30 1 Typing 120 0 30 1 Rest 150 1 30 1 Typing 180 0 30 1 Rest 210 1 30 1 Typing 240 0 30 1 Rest 270 1 30 1 Typing 300 0 30 1 Rest 330 1 30 1 Typing 360 0 30 1 Rest 390 1 30 1 Typing 420 0 30 1 Rest 450 1 30 1 Typing 480 0 30 1 Rest 510 1 30 1 Typing 540 0 30 1 Rest 570 1 30 1 Typing 600 0 30 1 Rest 630 1 30 1 Typing 660 0 30 1 Rest 690 1 30 1 Typing 720 0 30 1 Rest Thanks in advance! --Mandy Nagy ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html ___ 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.
