Hello,
I've comparing results of output from intergroupavg-sess with output from mri_glmfit, and the difference seems to be too huge to be accountable just from differences between the two programs.
I attached images that go along with the commands below. What do you think could be the cause of these huge differences? Are there any parameters that might reduce the difference?
Thanks, Rob
(September 2005) intergroupavg-sess \ -group1 BwGroupNormalsError5 \ -group2 BwGroupAspError5 \ -space sph \ -spacedir sph_sm20 \ -intergroup BwGroupError5 \ -analysis EMerror \ -contrast ASevASc
(Currently ran this because so I could then adjust the threshold using monte carlo data. The results of this should I think be the same or similar to the intergroupavg results) /space/greve/1/users/greve/freesurfer/bin/mri_glmfit \ --really-use-average7 \ --y rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.mgh \ --fsgd fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.fsgd \ --glmdir rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.glmdir \ --pca \ --surf average7 rh \ --C fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.mat \ --label average7/label/dACC_rACC_final-rh.label \ --fwhm 4.6
oh and I should mention that the glm one is constained to rACC and dACC, but the intergroupavg is not. -Rob
Robert Levy wrote:
Hello,
I've comparing results of output from intergroupavg-sess with output from mri_glmfit, and the difference seems to be too huge to be accountable just from differences between the two programs.
I attached images that go along with the commands below. What do you think could be the cause of these huge differences? Are there any parameters that might reduce the difference?
Thanks, Rob
(September 2005) intergroupavg-sess \ -group1 BwGroupNormalsError5 \ -group2 BwGroupAspError5 \ -space sph \ -spacedir sph_sm20 \ -intergroup BwGroupError5 \ -analysis EMerror \ -contrast ASevASc
(Currently ran this because so I could then adjust the threshold using monte carlo data. The results of this should I think be the same or similar to the intergroupavg results) /space/greve/1/users/greve/freesurfer/bin/mri_glmfit \ --really-use-average7 \ --y rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.mgh \ --fsgd fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.fsgd \ --glmdir rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.glmdir \ --pca \ --surf average7 rh \ --C fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.mat \ --label average7/label/dACC_rACC_final-rh.label \ --fwhm 4.6 --
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
what does it look like if you don't constrain it?
Robert Levy wrote:
oh and I should mention that the glm one is constained to rACC and dACC, but the intergroupavg is not. -Rob
Robert Levy wrote:
Hello,
I've comparing results of output from intergroupavg-sess with output from mri_glmfit, and the difference seems to be too huge to be accountable just from differences between the two programs.
I attached images that go along with the commands below. What do you think could be the cause of these huge differences? Are there any parameters that might reduce the difference?
Thanks, Rob
(September 2005) intergroupavg-sess \ -group1 BwGroupNormalsError5 \ -group2 BwGroupAspError5 \ -space sph \ -spacedir sph_sm20 \ -intergroup BwGroupError5 \ -analysis EMerror \ -contrast ASevASc
(Currently ran this because so I could then adjust the threshold using monte carlo data. The results of this should I think be the same or similar to the intergroupavg results) /space/greve/1/users/greve/freesurfer/bin/mri_glmfit \ --really-use-average7 \ --y rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.mgh \ --fsgd fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.fsgd \ --glmdir rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.glmdir \ --pca \ --surf average7 rh \ --C fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.mat \ --label average7/label/dACC_rACC_final-rh.label \ --fwhm 4.6
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi Doug,
It seems like the only difference in the relevant area is that the tinier cluster gets smoothed away. Is it often the case that gmlfit and intergroupavg-sess have such different results? I wonder what could cause this. It seems very dramatically different to me. Unlike this contrast, another contrast that I ran was very similar to its corresponding intergroupavg-sess output. One explanation I have heard is that jackknifing could make the difference. Is there a way to turn on or off jackknifing in mri_glmfit?
Thanks, Rob
Doug Greve wrote:
what does it look like if you don't constrain it?
Robert Levy wrote:
oh and I should mention that the glm one is constained to rACC and dACC, but the intergroupavg is not. -Rob
Robert Levy wrote:
Hello,
I've comparing results of output from intergroupavg-sess with output from mri_glmfit, and the difference seems to be too huge to be accountable just from differences between the two programs.
I attached images that go along with the commands below. What do you think could be the cause of these huge differences? Are there any parameters that might reduce the difference?
Thanks, Rob
(September 2005) intergroupavg-sess \ -group1 BwGroupNormalsError5 \ -group2 BwGroupAspError5 \ -space sph \ -spacedir sph_sm20 \ -intergroup BwGroupError5 \ -analysis EMerror \ -contrast ASevASc
(Currently ran this because so I could then adjust the threshold using monte carlo data. The results of this should I think be the same or similar to the intergroupavg results) /space/greve/1/users/greve/freesurfer/bin/mri_glmfit \ --really-use-average7 \ --y rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.mgh \ --fsgd fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.fsgd \ --glmdir rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.glmdir \ --pca \ --surf average7 rh \ --C fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.mat \ --label average7/label/dACC_rACC_final-rh.label \ --fwhm 4.6 --
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
-- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
I've never seen jackknifing make that big a diff, but you can turn it off when you run isxavg-re-sess with -nojackknife. Another thing to try is to compare the results of each group separately to that of mri_glmfit. I'm guessing that the problem is in smoothing differences somewhere. How did you create the input to glmfit?
Robert Levy wrote:
Hi Doug,
It seems like the only difference in the relevant area is that the tinier cluster gets smoothed away. Is it often the case that gmlfit and intergroupavg-sess have such different results? I wonder what could cause this. It seems very dramatically different to me. Unlike this contrast, another contrast that I ran was very similar to its corresponding intergroupavg-sess output. One explanation I have heard is that jackknifing could make the difference. Is there a way to turn on or off jackknifing in mri_glmfit?
Thanks, Rob
Doug Greve wrote:
what does it look like if you don't constrain it?
Robert Levy wrote:
oh and I should mention that the glm one is constained to rACC and dACC, but the intergroupavg is not. -Rob
Robert Levy wrote:
Hello,
I've comparing results of output from intergroupavg-sess with output from mri_glmfit, and the difference seems to be too huge to be accountable just from differences between the two programs.
I attached images that go along with the commands below. What do you think could be the cause of these huge differences? Are there any parameters that might reduce the difference?
Thanks, Rob
(September 2005) intergroupavg-sess \ -group1 BwGroupNormalsError5 \ -group2 BwGroupAspError5 \ -space sph \ -spacedir sph_sm20 \ -intergroup BwGroupError5 \ -analysis EMerror \ -contrast ASevASc
(Currently ran this because so I could then adjust the threshold using monte carlo data. The results of this should I think be the same or similar to the intergroupavg results) /space/greve/1/users/greve/freesurfer/bin/mri_glmfit \ --really-use-average7 \ --y rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.mgh \ --fsgd fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.fsgd \ --glmdir rh.ASevASc_8s_BwGroupError5.fsfast.glmdir \ --pca \ --surf average7 rh \ --C fsgd_and_contrast_files/BwGroupError5.mat \ --label average7/label/dACC_rACC_final-rh.label \ --fwhm 4.6
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
-- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
In order to help us help you, please follow the steps in: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
--
Robert P. Levy, B.A. Research Assistant, Manoach Lab Massachusetts General Hospital Charlestown Navy Yard 149 13th St., Room 2656 Charlestown, MA 02129 email: levy@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu phone: 617-726-1908 fax: 617-726-4078
http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/manoachlab
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Doug Greve -
Robert Levy