Submitted by wleewell on Mon, 09/24/2012 - 17:51
论坛老师好!
有几个问题想看看大家的意见。
1、AlphaSim与Gaussian random-field theory校正那个更严格,分别都更适用于那些情况呢?通常我发现GRF校正voxel P值设为z>2.3,这个值相当于p值多少呢,可否再设的松一点?REST新版加入了GRF校正,可否就该校正的参数设置及意义做一讲解呢?
2、前面严老师说REST中的REST smoothest可以估计校正要求的平滑值,对此有些不解:统计学检验图估计smooth值有什么意义?
3、我发现REST slice viewer与xjview好像有点差异,REST中输入voxel水平的p值0.01,对应T值2.70,而xjview中输入0.01对应T值2.32,不知什么原因?
4、新版DPARSFA中,将协变量剔除提前到filter前有什么意义?
麻烦了!
Submitted by YAN Chao-Gan on Mon, 09/24/2012 - 23:44 Permalink
Re: Some questions relative to your New edition sofeware
1. 我正在修改Course的第二部分。但鉴于第二部分本身比较长,定位不一定容易,可能考虑单出一个部分介绍GRF校正吧。关于Z>2.3,你有兴趣的话可以阅读一下之前的一个post: http://www.restfmri.net/forum/node/1126 (In addition, as a Note in my code: FSL's Z>2.3 corresponds to one-tailed VoxelPThreshold = 0.0107. |Z|>2.3 corresponds to two-tailed VoxelPThreshold = 0.0214.) 理论上,单个体素的P值是是可以设定在不同P值,不一定非要对应于2.3。可能用FSL做GRF的比较多,大家就用这个默认参考值已对应了。
2. 请参考http://www.restfmri.net/forum/node/1118
“My initial intention to write this script is want to perform the Gaussian Random Field Theory Correction like easythresh in FSL. Easythresh estimated the smoothness from the Z statistical image, so did this script.
However, the y_Smoothest (soon as rest_Smoothest in the new REST) script also could estimate the smoothness from residual file, and this way maybe better than the estimation based on Z statistical image.
According to Steve Smith, “Hi - you're right that easythresh isn't exactly the same, because it uses the zstat image and not the residuals to estimate smoothness.
However in my experience it isn't ever very different.” (https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0902&L=fsl&P=R48770&1=fsl&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4), estimation from Z statistical image is acceptable.
Thus, you can put the spmT image into y_GRF_Threhold, and then it will convert the T image into Z image by calling y_TFRtoZ, and later estimate the smoothness from the Z image. This procedure will be put the new REST which will be released by the end of this month.
This script is based on FSL’s tech report [Flitney, D.E., & Jenkinson, M. 2000. Cluster Analysis Revisited. Tech. rept. Oxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. TR00DF1.] and their program. However, discrepancy of smoothness estimation from AFNI or SPM to FSL may exist, as a recent post in FSL: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1208&L=fsl&P=R43270&1=fsl&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4.”
3. 因为REST用双侧检验,而xjview用单侧检验(like SPM)。
4. 可参考Weissenbacher, A., Kasess, C., Gerstl, F., Lanzenberger, R., Moser, E., Windischberger, C., 2009. Correlations and anticorrelations in resting-state functional connectivity MRI: a quantitative comparison of preprocessing strategies. Neuroimage 47, 1408-1416.
另外,也可见:http://www.conventus.de/fileadmin/media/2012/resting/abstracts/1_Abstract.pdf
Submitted by wleewell on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 14:30 Permalink
Re: Some questions relative to your New edition sofeware
我试用了下REST中的Gaussian Random Field Theory Correction,输入了T检验图,设置了voxel-level P值与Cluster-level P值,双侧检验,出现以下报错:
Exception occured. (MATLAB:undefinedVarOrClass)
Undefined variable "Header" or class "Header.mat".
26#line, rest_TFRtoZ, in "C:\Program Files\fMRI software\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\rest_TFRtoZ.m"
56#line, rest_GRF_Threshold, in "C:\Program Files\fMRI software\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\rest_GRF_Threshold.m"
304#line, run_pushbutton_Callback, in "C:\Program Files\fMRI software\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\rest_GRFCorrection_gui.m"
96#line, gui_mainfcn, in "C:\Program Files\MATLAB\R2008b\toolbox\matlab\guide\gui_mainfcn.m"
34#line, rest_GRFCorrection_gui, in "C:\Program Files\fMRI software\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\REST_V1.8PRE_120905\rest_GRFCorrection_gui.m"
0#line, @(hObject,eventdata)rest_GRFCorrection_gui('run_pushbutton_Callback',hObject,eventdata,guidata(hObject)), in ""
不知什么原因?
想再了解下,在rest中做GRF校正,如果设置z值>2.3,two-tailed,是不是填入voxel-level p值0.0214,cluster-level p值0.05就行?利用同样的参数输入voxel-level p值0.0214,校正后0.05,做AlphaSim校正,会不会和GRF校正的结果一样?也就是这两种方法原理上相同,只是参数输入有所不同?
Submitted by YAN Chao-Gan on Mon, 10/08/2012 - 23:34 Permalink
Re: Some questions relative to your New edition sofeware
可能是你输入的图不是NIFTI格式。
原理上不太一样,一个是模拟的,一个是用数学推导的。不过你可以比较一下。