Hi, sorry for the delay.
On 1/10/2020 1:42 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Dough,
Thanks for your reply. Below, I am summarizing my concerns from previous emails:
Q1. I was wondering which of the following two options is better than the other
(or neither
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Dough,
Thanks for your reply. Below, I am summarizing my concerns from previous
emails:
*Q1. *I was wondering which of the following two options is better than the
other (or neither may be !):
(i) CFT < 0.001 and CWT < 0.1 (i.e., CWT = 0.07)
sorry, I'm not sure I'm following. It looks like you did two analyses, one with
10mm smoothing and CFT=.05, the other with 12mm and CFT=.001. You get a cluster
for each in the same area, but they are not overlapping. Is that right?
On 1/6/2020 2:58 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
External
External Email - Use Caution
Hi,
I have follow-up concerns. I also ran PALM as following to check my results:
palm -i y.mgh -s fsaverage/surf/lh.white
fsaverage/surf/lh.white.avg.area.mgh -d X.csv -t C1.csv -m mask.mgh -o plm
-C 1.95996 -Cstat extent -twotail -n 5000
External Email - Use Caution
Hi,
I am using Monte-Carlo simulations (for cortical thickness and volume -
behavioral analysis) for clusterwise correction for multiple comparisons.
My results are either significant at (i) CFT < 0.001 and CWT < 0.1 (i.e.,
CWT = 0.07) (smoothing 12
