Hi Y'all, I've recently found an error in the way that mri_surfcluster
reports the area of a cluster when using a group surface such as
fsaverage. The bottom line is that the area reported is about 25% too
big. However, the cluster-wise p-values reported by mri_surfcluster
based on simulations from mri_glmfit ARE NOT AFFECTED. Volume clustering
is unaffected.
I have fixed this bug in the Martinos Center "dev" environment. Part of
this fix is to make old versions of mri_glmfit simulation incompatible
with new versions of mri_surfcluster (and vice versa) for surfaces (ie,
mri_surfcluster will exit with an error or will crash -- either way, it
will not complete), as this could generate erroneous p-values. We will
be propagating the fix to our stable version after the holidays, and
make new distributions available.
More info and updates can be found here:
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/GroupAverageSurface
As always, sorry for the bug.
doug
ps. On the brighter side, I discovered this bug while implementing
gaussian random field (GRF) corrections for multiple comparisons, so
soon you will be able to run GRF in seconds instead of running monte
carlo simulations over a weekend.
--
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Phone Number: 617-724-2358
Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in:
surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
