On 8/27/15 1:13 PM, Francesco Puccettone wrote:
Hello all,
I have seen several (older) papers that draw conclusions about the
implication of a brain region in a given task by using the following
logic: region X was activated in the contrast /taskAbaseline/, but
not in the contrast
On 8/27/15 1:20 PM, Francesco Puccettone wrote:
Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
is it ever correct to say for region Y, the activations found for
taskA were smaller than for taskB just based on the two contrasts
/taskAbaseline /and /taskBbaseline/? Or is it necessary
Hello all,
I have seen several (older) papers that draw conclusions about the
implication of a brain region in a given task by using the following logic:
region X was activated in the contrast *taskAbaseline*, but not in the
contrast *taskBbaseline*; therefore, region X is implicated in/essential
Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
is it ever correct to say for region Y, the activations found for taskA
were smaller than for taskB just based on the two contrasts *taskAbaseline
*and *taskBbaseline*? Or is it necessary that taskA and taskB be
contrasted directly to be
of activated regions between
taskctrl contrasts
Sorry, forgot to add one additional (related) question:
is it ever correct to say for region Y, the activations found for taskA were
smaller than for taskB just based on the two contrasts taskAbaseline and
taskBbaseline? Or is it necessary that taskA
