This is counter-intuitive but reasonable and expected. The distribution
of cluster sizes changes as you change the CFT. When you raise the CFT,
clusters get smaller, but the clusters under the null also get smaller
too. It may be that the smaller cluster size is actually less likely
under the
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer expert,
I hope this email finds you well. I am currently working on a project
involving FreeSurfer's cluster-wise correction methods, and I encountered
an unexpected result when adjusting the Cluster-Forming Threshold (CFT) and
Cluster-
On 5/1/15 10:13 AM, Hirsch, Gabriella wrote:
Hi FS experts,
I had a quick question about glmfit-sim in monte carlo.
I have followed the FS wiki by using the following command to correct
for multiple comparisons separately on both hemispheres:
mri_glmfit-sim \
--glmdir_?h.xxx.glmdir \
--
Hi FS experts,
I had a quick question about glmfit-sim in monte carlo.
I have followed the FS wiki by using the following command to correct for
multiple comparisons separately on both hemispheres:
mri_glmfit-sim \
--glmdir_?h.xxx.glmdir \
--sim mc-z 1 1.3 mc-z.absolute \
--sim-sign abs --c
What do you mean that they are different? We usually recommend 10,000
iterations.
doug
Gabriel Go.Es. wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello FreeSurfers
>
> I'm running some permutation tests and this induce me to a question,
>
> I'm using mri_glmfit-sim as recommended with the mc-z method, running
> 1000 perm
Hello FreeSurfers
I'm running some permutation tests and this induce me to a question,
I'm using mri_glmfit-sim as recommended with the mc-z method, running 1000
permutations and seeding randomly, I have ran this with the same data two
different times, and the results are bit different, co
