Hello Anders, Sorry that I just noticed your question(s). Similar to Binder et al. 2011, the primary contrast of interest for the LANGUAGE task is the contrast of STORY-MATH. I would be cautious evaluating the contrast of either “block" versus baseline (e.g., MATH vs. baseline). Because the task was not designed to have a specific resting baseline condition, the baseline is difficult to interpret. However, the contrast between the two conditions is valid and interpretable.
The other EV files (e.g., present_story.txt) break down the epochs into their main components. But if you look at the timing information in the EV files, you’ll see that the “present” epoch is almost the entire duration of the full epoch. --Greg ____________________________________________________________________ Greg Burgess, Ph.D. Staff Scientist, Human Connectome Project Washington University School of Medicine Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology Phone: 314-362-7864 Email: [email protected] > On May 10, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Anders Eklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear HCP users, > > I'm looking at the language data for subject 100307. When looking at the FSL > design file, > 100307/MNINonLinear/Results/tfMRI_LANGUAGE_LR_hp200_s4_level1.fsf , it seems > like 2 regressors were used during the analysis, one for math and one for > story. If I setup a similar design in FSL, it seems like these regressors are > extremely (anti)correlated. How did you manage do analyze the data with such > a strong correlation between the regressors (math.txt and story.txt) ? > > - Anders > > _______________________________________________ > HCP-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users > _______________________________________________ HCP-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.humanconnectome.org/mailman/listinfo/hcp-users
