Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for your quick reply!

I will try to clarify:

1.) Yes, having larger random components means that the actual component is not significant and we are aware that this represents not a general problem.
However, since we do not find any results (i.e., significant components) in our data, we suspect that this might be caused by a mismatch between negative (>) positive connections. Because this mismatch leads to having larger random than actual components while permuting the data with the NBS.

Why?:

• As I stated in my previous post. If we apply light proportional thresholding to erase (e.g., 5% of) negative connections, we get results that we deem meaningful.

• You also stated that:

„If this does not work, check that your connectivity values are indeed positive for the majority of samples."

Found here:  https://www.nitrc.org/forum/forum.php?th...


Maybe it would help us to better understand, if you could explain what you meant with that post and why someone should check that connectivity values are positive for the majority of samples and if/how this influences the NBS.

2.) Our question regarding the thresholding was not whether a mismatch would preclude the use of a thresholding. It's the other way around, we are asking ourselves, if such an imbalance would justify the use of such a thresholding.


Hope I was able to clarify.

Best,
Ole