Re: [Freesurfer] Reporting Results in a three group analysis

2019-12-05 Thread cody samth
External Email - Use Caution Thanks for the help! On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 6:47 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. < dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > Yes, but threshold it first, eg > mri_binarize --abs --i sig.cluster.mgh --min .01 --o newmask.mgh > > On 12/4/19 1:38 PM, cody samth wr

Re: [Freesurfer] Reporting Results in a three group analysis

2019-12-04 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
Yes, but threshold it first, eg mri_binarize --abs --i sig.cluster.mgh --min .01 --o newmask.mgh On 12/4/19 1:38 PM, cody samth wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Thanks, for your input. It's interesting that there isn't a more > standard way of approaching it. If i wanted to

Re: [Freesurfer] Reporting Results in a three group analysis

2019-12-04 Thread cody samth
External Email - Use Caution Thanks, for your input. It's interesting that there isn't a more standard way of approaching it. If i wanted to constrain my post-hoc to be within the cluster(s) from the main effect how would I go about running this through mri_glmfit? Would I include

Re: [Freesurfer] Reporting Results in a three group analysis

2019-12-02 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
I don't think there is a standard way to do this. A vertex-wise analysis is not the same thing as a averaging over a group of vertices. I guess you could constrain your post-hoc analysis to be within the main effect cluster; that would be most consistent. But I don't think you'd have any problem

[Freesurfer] Reporting Results in a three group analysis

2019-12-02 Thread cody samth
External Email - Use Caution Hi, I have a statistical question about how to approach reporting results from FreeSurfer analyses containing three groups. I ran a group effect (F-test) and then post-hoc tests looking at pair-wise comparisons between the three groups. My question is