<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi Marco,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><SPAN
class=q><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><SPAN
class=q>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>Another related question: I computed a post-hoc non kosher tuning
of the window around the most significative cluster in my data,
and I saw that it is significative (p<0.05) if the window
edges exceed of about 50 ms the cluster edges (since
the cluster is about 70 ms long, the whole window is about 170 ms
long); but if I take longer windows, the p-value increases quite
rapidly (I'm running at least 500 random draws for each window, and
checking that the result does not depend on the number of
draws). Do you have such instabilities in your data or should I
think that the effect relative to my cluster is definitely too weak?
Or maybe my data are not clean enough? </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></SPAN>
<DIV>This phenomenon is not an instability, it is what I would expect.
Imagine your trials are 10 seconds long and there is an effect in the
latency window between 1.3 and 1.35 seconds (i.e., less than 1
percent of trial length). If you ask clusterrandanalysis to compare the
conditions over the complete trial length, it may very well miss the
effect in the window between 1.3 and 1.35 seconds, because it has
to use a large critical value in order to control for false positives in
the time window where there is no effect (i.e., 99 percent of
the 10 second trial). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I also expected the significativity to decrease while increasing the
time window for the same reason, but I was surprised to see the p-value
increase so rapidly. I may pose the question more clearly: from your
experience, would you say that the effect I described can be considered
significative or not? (a few other details: I have 128 electrodes, 8
subjects, and the window I'm choosing is the window where I expect an effect
from the literature) A related question is: how much do artifacts
influence this kind of test? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The question of significance can only answered on the basis of
probability calculations. My own experience is irrelevant in this
respect.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With respect to the artifacts, you must be aware of the fact that the
power of statistical tests is adversely affected by eye-blinks and all
other non-neuronal factors in the signal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>greetings,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>