hi doug
Thanks for checking my code and the hint with the smoothing rate. I appreciate
your time on my issue.
I’ve ran a series of different smoothing rates (from 10-30mm) and 25mm showed
the best results for our data in terms of cluster size but still prominent
effects in summary statistics.
Yes, that all looks correct. Though 25mm is a lot of smoothing. I
usually use 10-15mm.
doug
On 11/06/2013 10:34 AM, Vivian R. Steiger wrote:
> Hi Doug
>
> Thanks for your answer on my issue "glmfit for paired-diff on 2 groups" in
> the mailinglist
>
>
> Commands:
>
>
> mris_preproc --t
Hi Doug
Thanks for your answer on my issue "glmfit for paired-diff on 2 groups" in the
mailinglist
Commands:
mris_preproc --target 1_average_30VPs --fsgd responder.txt --hemi lh
--meas thickness --out respnon_lh_thickness.mgh —paired-diff-norm
mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --
Yes, that looks correct, though I could be more confident if you send
the command lines used and your fsgd file(s).
doug
On 10/31/2013 07:32 AM, Vivian R. Steiger wrote:
> Dear FS-Experts,
>
> I would like to compare 2 Groups (Responder (N=19) vs. Non-Responder (N=11))
> with longitudinal dat
Dear FS-Experts,
I would like to compare 2 Groups (Responder (N=19) vs. Non-Responder (N=11))
with longitudinal data.
Participants from both groups had only 2 scan sessions in each case 10 weeks
apart.
So far is used the glmfit-variant with --paired-diff option in the first place.
(based on ht
