Dear Doug, Thank you for your clarification. It sounds the right way for correction is:mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --cache 4 neg \ --cwp 0.05\ --2spaces
One last question: Is the resulting "cache.th40.neg.sig.cluster.summary" the right file to look for post-correction cluster information? The (old) manual said results should be stored in a files starting with "mc-z", but the "cache....summary" file is the only summary file FS produces after running the script above...
thank you.
Karl
******************************************************** In the first command you only used 5 samples in your simulation. If you read the "Notes" section below the command, you'll see that this should be something like 5000. Only 5 was used because it would take very long to run. In general, you don't need to run the simulation because it has already been run and the data tabulated (this is what is accessed in the 2nd command line).On 03/02/2016 10:03 PM, Karl Liu wrote:
Dear Freesurfer experts:
I ran into a confusing problem when applying Monte Carlo simulation to control for multiple comparisons. I am using the buckner data from tutorial dataset.
I first tried the simulation based on Freesurfer;s 2012 manual:
(http://www.freesurfer.net/pub/docs/tarballs_for_courses/FreeSurferTutorial-2...)
mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --sim mc-z 5 4 mc-z.negative \ --sim-sign neg --cwpvalthresh 0.05\ --overwrite
This produced a "mc-z.negative.sig.cluster.summary". In this text, no clusters survived correction.
Later on, I applied on a slightly different script, based on Freesurfer tutorial
(http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/GroupAnalysis#Clusterwis...)
mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --cache 4 neg \ --cwp 0.05\ --2spaces
It produced a "cache.th40.neg.sig.cluster.summary" this time. But according to this result, 22 clusters survived.
Now I am quite confused, because both corrections have the same voxel-wise (p=0.001) and cluster-wise (p=0.05) threshold. Where the drastic discrepancies come from and which result is more reliable?
Many thinks in advance.
Best,
Karl
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
yes, that is the right file
On 03/03/2016 02:20 PM, Karl Liu wrote:
Dear Doug, Thank you for your clarification. It sounds the right way for correction is:
mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --cache 4 neg \ --cwp 0.05\ --2spaces
One last question: Is the resulting "cache.th40.neg.sig.cluster.summary" the right file to look for post-correction cluster information? The (old) manual said results should be stored in a files starting with "mc-z", but the "cache....summary" file is the only summary file FS produces after running the script above...
thank you.
Karl
In the first command you only used 5 samples in your simulation. If you read the "Notes" section below the command, you'll see that this should be something like 5000. Only 5 was used because it would take very long to run. In general, you don't need to run the simulation because it has already been run and the data tabulated (this is what is accessed in the 2nd command line). On 03/02/2016 10:03 PM, Karl Liu wrote:
Dear Freesurfer experts:
I ran into a confusing problem when applying Monte Carlo simulation to control for multiple comparisons. I am using the buckner data from tutorial dataset.
I first tried the simulation based on Freesurfer;s 2012 manual:
(http://www.freesurfer.net/pub/docs/tarballs_for_courses/FreeSurferTutorial-2...)
mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --sim mc-z 5 4 mc-z.negative \ --sim-sign neg --cwpvalthresh 0.05\ --overwrite
This produced a "mc-z.negative.sig.cluster.summary". In this text, no clusters survived correction.
Later on, I applied on a slightly different script, based on Freesurfer tutorial
(http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/GroupAnalysis#Clusterwis...)
mri_glmfit-sim \ --glmdir lh.gender_age.glmdir \ --cache 4 neg \ --cwp 0.05\ --2spaces
It produced a "cache.th40.neg.sig.cluster.summary" this time. But according to this result, 22 clusters survived.
Now I am quite confused, because both corrections have the same voxel-wise (p=0.001) and cluster-wise (p=0.05) threshold. Where the drastic discrepancies come from and which result is more reliable?
Many thinks in advance.
Best,
Karl
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 gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop:https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/filedrop2 www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html Outgoing:ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/flat/greve/
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in erro
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Douglas N Greve -
Karl Liu