I assume that you are comparing maps of Version1:1v0 and Version2:2v0 ? I could imagine it going either way. If the true slope is 0 but the offset is non-0, then Version1 will give you an artificially high slope (and Verion2 will give you the correct slope at 0, and so no activation). Are you comparing this to a BV analysis?
doug
Katie Bettencourt wrote:
So I created a weighted regression analysis to look at the effect of memory load in a particular brain region. Basically, I weighted the paradigms by a behavioral measure that reflected the number of items actually remembered (as set size was increased). As far as Doug told me there are basically 2 ways to weight your paradigm files.
Version 1: Have 2 conditions, baseline (condition 0) and all the set sizes (condition 1). Condition 1 would then be weighted by the behavioral measure.
Version 2: Have 3 conditions, baseline (condition 0), and then I represented each presentation as two different conditions, one with a weight that is always 1 (condition 1), the other weighted according to the behavioral measure (condition 2).
The difference, as far as I understand it, in version 1, it is assumed that the response amplitude is ) when the weight is 0 (ie. that when you are attending to 0 items, brain activity = 0). Whereas, version 2, tests the slope of the HRF amplitude vs weight without the assumption above.
However, I'm a bit confused as to the results I got. When I looked at the data from both versions, version 1 provided a much higher amount of activation and more areas activated than version 2. However, I believe version 2 better fits with the multiple regression analysis that is done in Brain Voyager.
Can anyone give me a better explanation of what the difference between these analysis models is?
Katie