Thank you, Yes, I wasn’t necessarily looking for one parcel, but any set of parcels that may be implicated in response inhibition or considered to be part of IFG, although the fewer the better for fewer comparisons.
If I want to follow the following steps, can you please recommend which wb_command options to use? 1) select specific cortical parcels or subcortical ROIs from a parcellation ( -cifti-parcellate ?) 2) Merge them into one mask ( -cifti-merge-parcels ?) Then I would like to either perform palm or flameo constrained within those parcels rather than across the whole brain. Can I simply use the -m option as a mask? for the group level analysis? Alternatively, to extract mean ROI betas within those parcels, I would use -cifti-parcellate ? Thank you, Michael > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Burgess, Gregory > <burge...@psychiatry.wustl.edu> wrote: > > HCP did not have a task that was geared toward response inhibition. > Furthermore, although it’s alluring to believe that a single parcel will > encapsulate all of response inhibition, it’s doubtful. > > Why not select a set of parcels in and near IFG, and correct for multiple > comparisons? Use a meta-analysis as your guide > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__neurosynth.org_analyses_terms_response-2520inhibition_&d=DQIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=rPclmYysc_z1plf99IoNsmxWf1JolkKMmL6bXnYFSwg&m=SCR2dU9y5YkzYU3rgjo7rduIoEELBtYrYjJx-G1Hl9c&s=EajrPIdxTsDcQglfMaWTOUrPHr6TZrONB3YFnW5TZcc&e= > ). Your statistical power should still benefit from the parcellated analysis > and reduced number of multiple comparisons, relative to a whole-brain > analysis. > > --Greg > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Greg Burgess, Ph.D. > Staff Scientist, Human Connectome Project > Washington University School of Medicine > Department of Psychiatry > Phone: 314-362-7864 > Email: gburg...@wustl.edu > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Michael F.W. Dreyfuss <mid2...@med.cornell.edu> >> wrote: >> >> I agree, that’s why I was checking in to see if there was a sub parcel you >> had identified as being involved in response inhibition from your tasks, >> such as flanker. There is a lot of background of IFG being involved in >> response inhibition, particularly on go/nogo tasks,, so I was wondering if >> you had any information on specifically where within your parcellation that >> may be most relevant. >> >>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Harms, Michael <mha...@wustl.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Just a reminder to be careful here to avoid issues of >>> circularity/double-dipping. You indicated that you had a priori hypotheses >>> about IFG involvement, but that doesn’t allow you to then select a >>> particular IFG parcel based on your task activation map. Ideally, you >>> would have selected your parcel(s) for analysis prior to ever >>> computing/viewing your activation map (unless what you showed was a map >>> from an independent, unrelated set of subjects). >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> HCP-Users mailing list >> HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.humanconnectome.org_mailman_listinfo_hcp-2Dusers&d=DQIGaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=rPclmYysc_z1plf99IoNsmxWf1JolkKMmL6bXnYFSwg&m=SCR2dU9y5YkzYU3rgjo7rduIoEELBtYrYjJx-G1Hl9c&s=WqF5T6WlCupqGZKNBqVeoQQB9XKvmaC8F_-YdenjXqg&e= >> >> > > > ________________________________ > The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected > Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are > not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, > copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list HCP-Users@humanconnectome.org http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
