help
help > RE: Second level results interpretation
Apr 22, 2014 03:04 AM | Alfonso Nieto-Castanon - Boston University
RE: Second level results interpretation
Hi Greg,
I am going to assume here that the three conditions that you mention are all within-subject effects (let me know if these represent instead three different subject groups). Assuming you have two between-subject effects (treatment and placebo, dummy coded regressors identifying the subjects in each group), and 6 within-subject conditions (named preA to preC, and postA to postC, for the pre- and post- session scans for each of your 3 conditions A,B, and C), then:
To begin with, if you just want to look at the interaction between treatment/placebo and pre/post for condition A you woud select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', and 'postA' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1]. This will highlight those areas where the connectivity differences for condition A (comparing post- vs. pre- treatment) are different between the treatment and placebo groups.
Then, if you want to do the same, but simultaneously across the three conditions (perform an F-test of the interaction between treatment/placebo and pre/post across any of your three conditions) you would select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB', and 'preC','postC' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 0 0 0 0; 0 0 -1 1 0 0; 0 0 0 0 -1 1]. This will highlight those areas where the connectivity differences (comparing post- vs. pre- treatment) are different between the treatment and placebo groups, in any of the three conditions tested.
Now, if you want to compare the above effects across conditions (e.g. you want to see whether the treatment effect is different between condition A and condition B), you would select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 1 -1].
Last if you want to perform the above comparison simultaneously across all conditions (to see whether the treatment effect is the same across the three conditions), you would again select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB', and 'preC','postC' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 1 -1 0 0; 0 0 -1 1 1 -1].
Let me know if this clarifies.
Best
Alfonso
Originally posted by Greg Book:
I am going to assume here that the three conditions that you mention are all within-subject effects (let me know if these represent instead three different subject groups). Assuming you have two between-subject effects (treatment and placebo, dummy coded regressors identifying the subjects in each group), and 6 within-subject conditions (named preA to preC, and postA to postC, for the pre- and post- session scans for each of your 3 conditions A,B, and C), then:
To begin with, if you just want to look at the interaction between treatment/placebo and pre/post for condition A you woud select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', and 'postA' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1]. This will highlight those areas where the connectivity differences for condition A (comparing post- vs. pre- treatment) are different between the treatment and placebo groups.
Then, if you want to do the same, but simultaneously across the three conditions (perform an F-test of the interaction between treatment/placebo and pre/post across any of your three conditions) you would select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB', and 'preC','postC' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 0 0 0 0; 0 0 -1 1 0 0; 0 0 0 0 -1 1]. This will highlight those areas where the connectivity differences (comparing post- vs. pre- treatment) are different between the treatment and placebo groups, in any of the three conditions tested.
Now, if you want to compare the above effects across conditions (e.g. you want to see whether the treatment effect is different between condition A and condition B), you would select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 1 -1].
Last if you want to perform the above comparison simultaneously across all conditions (to see whether the treatment effect is the same across the three conditions), you would again select 'treatment' and 'placebo' in the between-subject effects, and enter a between-subject contrast of [1 -1], and then select 'preA', 'postA', 'preB', 'postB', and 'preC','postC' in the conditions list and enter a between-conditions contrast of [-1 1 1 -1 0 0; 0 0 -1 1 1 -1].
Let me know if this clarifies.
Best
Alfonso
Originally posted by Greg Book:
I have an experiment with two groups (treatment,
placebo), each with pre and post sessions for 3 conditions. How can
I compare across groups and across conditions? I can't seem to
figure out how the second level results screen is setup for the
statistics. So I have two questions:
1) If I wanted to perform an f-test of the treatment/placebo across pre/post, how would I set that up?
2) What does the identity (eye(n)) matrix show? How is that different than specifying [1 1]?
1) If I wanted to perform an f-test of the treatment/placebo across pre/post, how would I set that up?
2) What does the identity (eye(n)) matrix show? How is that different than specifying [1 1]?
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Greg Book | Feb 28, 2014 | |
| Alfonso Nieto-Castanon | Apr 22, 2014 | |
| Alfonso Nieto-Castanon | Apr 22, 2014 | |
