Dear Matthew and list,
I have a question about the validity and interpretability of
F-statistics in MarsBar. I have a 3 x 2 factorial fMRI design with factors
GROUP (3 levels) and CONDITION (called “BMC”; 2 levels).
When performing an F-test in an anatomical ROI (left Pallidum) in MarsBar,
I got a very significant result (subgroup x BMC; F=5.79, 0.003563). However,
when I extracted the averaged betas in order to plot them, and performed the
same F-contrast in SPSS, I found that the same interaction effect was far from
significant (subgroup x BMC, F=1,29; p=0.28). The same difference did not apply
to a simple t-test in the same design: (MarsBar: t=1.56; p=0.060622; SPSS: t=1.649;
p=0.108). I understand that MarsBar and SPM use one-sided t-tests, explaining
the different p-values for the t-test, but how does this influence
F-statistics? And how should I interpret a significant F-statistic in MarsBar?
Below I have pasted the results from MarsBar.
I am curious to hear your opinion, thanks a lot!
Yours, Rick
=========================================
Rick C.G. Helmich, MD (Ph.D student)
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for
Cognitive Neuroimaging
RadboudUniversityNijmegen
P.O. Box 9101
6500 HB Nijmegen
The Netherlands
T 00 31 (0)24 36 65077
F 00 31 (0)24 36 10989
E rick.helmich <at> fcdonders.ru.nl
web: www.fcdonders.ru.nl
=========================================
F-CONTRAST
Contrast
name
ROI name: Extra SS: F
statistic: Uncorrected P: Corrected P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interaction: subgroup x BMC
------------------------------------------
Pallidum_L: 27.56:
5.79: 0.003563:
0.003563
T-CONTRAST
Contrast
name
ROI name: Contrast value: t statistic: Uncorrected
P: Corrected P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CON>TDT_BMC
------------------------------------------
Pallidum_L: 0.52:
1.56:
0.060622: 0.060622