Re: [Freesurfer] Monte-Carlo correction and 3-groups comparison

It is appropriate. The F-test is not the same as t-test, so it is not totally surpising that you get different results On 12/22/17 5:06 PM, Pauline Duret wrote: Hello all, I am running a gyrification analysis between 3 groups. So I modeled my GLM like the one on this page: https://surfer.nmr

[Freesurfer] Monte-Carlo correction and 3-groups comparison

Hello all, I am running a gyrification analysis between 3 groups. So I modeled my GLM like the one on this page: https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/Fsgdf3G0V I was wondering if it is correct to run a Monte-Carlo correction on the resu

[Freesurfer] Monte Carlo correction in QDEC

Dear FreeSurfer experts, for the analysis in QDEC I created my own Monte Carlo correction. My questions relate to the threshold option. 1. Would I use neg if I have mostly blue clusters in the QDEC display and pos if I have mostly red clusters? 2. When do I use abs? 3. I compared the neg optio

Re: [Freesurfer] Monte Carlo correction

No, QDEC is a very limited tool. You'll have to use the command line (mri_glmfit-sim). Also, you'll need to register each of your subjects to the new atlas (surfreg), then specify the average subject AND the new registration when running mris_preproc to create a new y.mgh file. None of this can

[Freesurfer] Monte Carlo correction

Dear all, During my analysis for pial_lgi instead of using fsaverage I prepared my own average surface using make_average and recon-all qcache. Now, I want to correct the results for multiple comparisons using Monte Carlo Null-Z simulation in Qdec. However, when I use my own average as common-

[Freesurfer] Monte Carlo correction

Hi there, I am trying to run a monte carlo correction on my average subject, using the full mri-mcsim run with 1 iterations (and about 200 participants). This is taking a long time, and the cluster I have access to has a limit of 72 hours which isn't long enough to finish processing. Is the