Well, if doing a thickness analysis, then mean cortical thickness seems
the "natural" covariate to use, if you want to answer the question
whether the thickness difference in a region is "beyond" any difference
that would be predicted based on mean cortical thickness. This is
especially relevant
Thank you for your suggestions Bruce and Mike.
Mike, could you please provide the motivation behind your suggestion of
using mean cortical thickness as a covariate ?
Let's consider this is the context of a simple example. Let's say we compare
the mean thickness of the pre-central gyrus in patien
To me, it makes much more sense to use mean cortical thickness as a
covariate for thickness-based analyses.
cheers,
Mike H.
> Hi Mehul,
>
> the MNI group had an abstract showing that thickness didn't need eTIV
> correction at HBM a number of years ago, and it has been our experience
> as well.
>
Hi Mehul,
the MNI group had an abstract showing that thickness didn't need eTIV
correction at HBM a number of years ago, and it has been our experience
as well.
cheers,
Bruce
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Mehul Sampat wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> If am comparing the mean thickness for certain gyri (pre-cent
Hi Folks,
If am comparing the mean thickness for certain gyri (pre-central,
post-central) in a controls versus patients.
I obtain the thickness measurements from lh.aparc.a2009s.stats and
rh.aparc.a2009s.stats
I was wondering if I need to normalize these thickness measurement
with the estimated
to
