or cluster-mass method
within freesurfer? Thank you so much! Stefan
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:57:34 -0800
From: Don Hagler
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] thickness maps: FDR versus Monte Carlo -
different results
To: Doug Greve
Cc: freesurfer maillist
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text
500
> From: gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> To: dhagle...@hotmail.com
> CC: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] thickness maps: FDR versus Monte Carlo -
> different results
>
> Don, why do you say that .05 is too liberal? We use a simulation-based
> test
FDR is NOT more conservative than cluster-based methods, in general. The
smoother the data, the more conservative FDR is.
In my experience with surface-based data, FDR has been less sensitive
than cluster-based methods -- perhaps because my data was very smooth.
> Stefan Brauns wrote:
>
>> W
e multiple comparison
> corrected p value, for which you would usually use 0.05.
>
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:02:45 -0500
> From: stefan.bra...@googlemail.com
> To: Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Subject
nd is the multiple comparison corrected p value, for
which you would usually use 0.05.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:02:45 -0500
From: stefan.bra...@googlemail.com
To: Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: [Freesurfer] thickness maps: FDR versus Monte Carlo - different
results
Hi there,
we are s
These results look reasonable given what each method is doing. The FDR
blob is there because it is very bright (significant). It is lost in the
cluster-wise correction because it is small, and the cluster-wise
correction does not care how significant something is as long as it
meets threshold.
