Many thanks Doug and Christopher!
Best,
Francesco
On 28 August 2015 at 16:34, Douglas Greve wrote:
>
>
> On 8/27/15 1:20 PM, Francesco Puccettone wrote:
>
> Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
>
> is it ever correct to say "for region Y, the activations found for taskA
> were
On 8/27/15 1:20 PM, Francesco Puccettone wrote:
Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
is it ever correct to say "for region Y, the activations found for
taskA were smaller than for taskB" just based on the two contrasts
/taskA>baseline /and /taskB>baseline/? Or is it necess
On 8/27/15 1:13 PM, Francesco Puccettone wrote:
Hello all,
I have seen several (older) papers that draw conclusions about the
implication of a brain region in a given task by using the following
logic: region X was activated in the contrast /taskA>baseline/, but
not in the contrast /taskB>b
aper will help with this
question as well.
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
on behalf of Francesco Puccettone
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:20 PM
To: Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Comparing lists of activated regions betw
Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
is it ever correct to say "for region Y, the activations found for taskA
were smaller than for taskB" just based on the two contrasts *taskA>baseline
*and *taskB>baseline*? Or is it necessary that taskA and taskB be
contrasted directly to be
Hello all,
I have seen several (older) papers that draw conclusions about the
implication of a brain region in a given task by using the following logic:
region X was activated in the contrast *taskA>baseline*, but not in the
contrast *taskB>baseline*; therefore, region X is implicated in/essentia
