Hi, Doug

Apologies in advance for many basic questions in previous email. I figure out the visualization problem after correcting the command.

I re-run the data using changed parameter file shown in attachment. However, the result have no change at all.

The whole commands (step-by-step, lh only):

preproc-sess -s sess01 -fsd bold -stc odd -surface fsaverage lhrh -fwhm 5 -per-run

mkanalysis-sess -fsd bold -analysis stereozero.sm5.lh -surface fsaverage lh -fwhm 5 -paradigm stereo-vs-zero.par -event-related -spmhrf 0 -refeventdur 16 -TR 2 -nconditions 2 -polyfit 2 -per-run

mkcontrast-sess -analysis stereozero.sm5.lh -contrast stereo-vs-zero -a 1 -c 2 -nosumconds

selxavg3-sess -analysis stereozero.sm5.lh -s sess01

tksurfer-sess -s sess01 -analysis stereozero.sm5.lh -c stereo-vs-zero

Can you give me some advice ？

Thanks!

best,

star

Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <DGREVE@mgh.harvard.edu> 于2019年1月10日周四上午7:32写道：

did you look at the zero-disparity vs fixation contrast? Can you send
your paradigm file? Can you send pictures?

On 1/9/19 12:26 AM, xi star wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi! FS Experts!
> In the fMRI experiment, there are 2 conditions:
> 1# 3D picture
> 2# zero disparity picture
> interleaved with fixation block (0).
>
> To compare 3D-vs-zero disparity, I used command:
> mkcontrast-sess -a 1 -c 2 -nosumconds
> but the results showed more activation then expected. To find the
> problem, I compared 3D-vs-fix (-a 1 -c 0), the result shows the same
> as 3D-vs-zero disparity.
> My question is:
> why the two contrast ( [1 0; 0 -1] and [1 0] ) came to the same
> result? How can I compared the two conditions?
> Thanks a lot !
> Yours,
> Star
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer