Yes.
Doug Greve wrote:
But while an F with J=1 gives the same p value as an unsighed t, the
actual statistic will be F = t^2. Could this account for the discrepancy?
Glenn Lawyer wrote:
No, not at all sure. That is why I am asking. However, mri_glmfit
says that the values should be t-values i
But while an F with J=1 gives the same p value as an unsighed t, the
actual statistic will be F = t^2. Could this account for the discrepancy?
Glenn Lawyer wrote:
No, not at all sure. That is why I am asking. However, mri_glmfit says
that the values should be t-values if there is only one row
No, not at all sure. That is why I am asking. However, mri_glmfit says
that the values should be t-values if there is only one row in the
contrast matrix, which makes sense mathematically:
"The F-ratio for the contrast is then given by:
F = G'*inv(C*inv(X'W'*W*X))*C')*G/(J*rvar)
The F is the
The values in F.mgh are F dist under the null. But you should only have
an F there if it is a multivariate contrast (ie, the contrast matrix has
more than one row).
doug
Don Hagler wrote:
Are you sure that it is saving t-values in F.mgh and not F-stats?
From: Glenn Lawyer <[EMAIL PRO
Are you sure that it is saving t-values in F.mgh and not F-stats?
From: Glenn Lawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: [Freesurfer] t-value saved values
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:00:44 +0200
Hi,
I asked about this last week, and had a nice discussion with Doug, b
