<div dir="ltr"><div>What you described in your reply to me just now, calling
ft_timelockstatistics at the subject level to calculate descriptives,
still effectively reduces each subject to one "datapoint" -- the
difference between conditions of the selected t-descriptive for that
subject. I believe I understand how to do that, and how to then do
nonparametric shuffle testing at the between-subjects level for the
signfiicance of that within-subjects descriptive/difference.<br><br></div><div>>> Ok. That's indeed the procedure I tried to outline.<br></div><div><br>In your earlier reply to Raghavan, it sounded like you were suggesting
pooling the trials themselves between subjects (that is, all subjects'
trials go into one big "bucket"), with the trial-to-trial variance
having been removed via ft_regressconfound, *then* calling the
ft_statistics functions on this single large "bucket" of trials. Have I
misunderstood your suggestion?<br><br></div>>> I might have not been clear there then. I was meant to say that one could use ft_regressconfound on trials of two (or more) conditions combined of a single subject, prior to calculating the single subject t-descriptive (using ft_xxxstatistics). This allows one to compute a 'cleaner' t-score, or at least provide a good case that head movement did not differentially influence activity levels in the separate conditions. It was not related to pooling trials between subjects. <br>
<div><span class=""><font color="#888888"></font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-02-21 16:14 GMT+01:00 Alik Widge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alik.widge@gmail.com" target="_blank">alik.widge@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I don't *think* I'm asking about how to do second-order analysis, unless I have missed something important. I did read the link/FAQ when I was working on this last week, and that seems different than the question I am asking.<br>
<br></div>What you described in your reply to me just now, calling ft_timelockstatistics at the subject level to calculate descriptives, still effectively reduces each subject to one "datapoint" -- the difference between conditions of the selected t-descriptive for that subject. I believe I understand how to do that, and how to then do nonparametric shuffle testing at the between-subjects level for the signfiicance of that within-subjects descriptive/difference.<br>
<div><br></div><div>In your earlier reply to Raghavan, it sounded like you were suggesting pooling the trials themselves between subjects (that is, all subjects' trials go into one big "bucket"), with the trial-to-trial variance having been removed via ft_regressconfound, *then* calling the ft_statistics functions on this single large "bucket" of trials. Have I misunderstood your suggestion?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>Alik<br></font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class=""><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Alik Widge<br><a href="mailto:alik.widge@gmail.com" target="_blank">alik.widge@gmail.com</a><br><a href="tel:%28206%29%20866-5435" value="+12068665435" target="_blank">(206) 866-5435</a><br>
<br></div></div>
<br><br></div><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Stolk, A. (Arjen) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.stolk@fcdonders.ru.nl" target="_blank">a.stolk@fcdonders.ru.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Dear Alik,<br><br>If I am correct, you're asking how to create subject-level t-descriptives, mentioned in the previous post? A quick answer would be to perform an indepedent t-test ( cfg.statistic = indepsamplesT; ) using ft_timelockstatistics (although you're not really 'testing' here, but only interested in that t-descriptive), in which trials are the unit of observations ( cfg.design = [ones(1, ntrls_conditionA) 2*ones(1, ntrls_conditionB)]; ). Note that since an indepedent t-test tests for differences of the means of two conditions, it won't fail on unequal number of observations across the conditions (unlike a dependent/paired t-test).<br>
<br>Hope this gets you kickstarted for the moment. I found a previous mail-conversation that goes more into detail, providing more overview of the steps involved:<br><a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/2011-November/004539.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/2011-November/004539.html</a><br>
More useful documentation:<br><a href="http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/faq/what_is_the_idea_behind_statistical_inference_at_the_second-level" target="_blank">http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/faq/what_is_the_idea_behind_statistical_inference_at_the_second-level</a><br>
<br>Yours,<br>Arjen<br><br><hr><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px"><b>Van: </b>"Alik Widge" <<a href="mailto:alik.widge@gmail.com" target="_blank">alik.widge@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Aan: </b>"FieldTrip discussion list" <<a href="mailto:fieldtrip@science.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@science.ru.nl</a>><br><b>Verzonden: </b>Vrijdag 21 februari 2014 11:38:10<div><div><br>
<b>Onderwerp: </b>Re: [FieldTrip] regressconfound and frequency domain<br><br><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Arjen, what you just described is more or less what I struggled to do last week and ultimately gave up as I was unable to figure out how to get FT to do it despite much meditation over tutorials and source files. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you are saying below -- not the ft_regressconfound bit, but the bit about how to get ft_statistics_montecarlo and its wrappers to do a trials-level analysis and permutation at the whole-group level? Especially, what does one put in cfg.design and how does one call the function? Everything I could find in the tutorials described the case of doing means at the subject level and then permutation of means at the group level, which as you point out is underpowered for subtle effects.<br>
<br></div>My particular situation was timelock-analyzed trials (with keeptrials='yes'), but I could not find a way to set up cfg.design that did not throw error messages. The thing that really seemed to bother it was that there were different numbers of trials in the 2-3 conditions of interest, since some had to be removed for excessive artifact.<br>
<br></div>Thanks for any help,<br></div>Alik<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Alik Widge<br><a href="mailto:alik.widge@gmail.com" target="_blank">alik.widge@gmail.com</a><br><a href="tel:%28206%29%20866-5435" value="+12068665435" target="_blank">(206) 866-5435</a><br>
<br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Stolk, A. (Arjen) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.stolk@fcdonders.ru.nl" target="_blank">a.stolk@fcdonders.ru.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Dear Raghavan,<br><br>To compute a t-descriptive on subject level freq data, you'll need to use ft_freqstatistics. Have a look here for instance:<br><a href="http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/tutorial/cluster_permutation_freq" target="_blank">http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/tutorial/cluster_permutation_freq</a><br>
<br>At the subject level, you do not need (non-parametric) cluster permutation testing (Maris & Oostenveld), as you're taking each subject's t-descriptives to the group level. At the group level, you can then test the hypothesis that there's a difference between tasks/conditions (H1) vs. no difference (H0). In order to do so, you'll need to create a dummy variable at the group level, that has the same number of 'subjects', but with zeros in all fields (in your case this will be a .stat field). At the group level, you thus call ft_freqstatistics again. This approach has the advantage that you're more sensitive (as compared to taking each subject's mean to the group level) to effects that are small but consistent over trials in each subject.<br>
<br>Arjen<br><br><br><hr><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px"><div><b>Van: </b>"Raghavan Gopalakrishnan" <<a href="mailto:gopalar.ccf@gmail.com" target="_blank">gopalar.ccf@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Aan: </b><a href="mailto:fieldtrip@science.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@science.ru.nl</a><br></div><b>Verzonden: </b>Donderdag 20 februari 2014 23:33:18<div><div><br><b>Onderwerp: </b>Re: [FieldTrip] regressconfound and frequency domain<br>
<br><div>Thanks Arjen,</div><div>Should I use ft_freqdescriptives to compute t descriptives for individual subjects, and then take that to group level instead of mean? If not, what are the other alternatives?</div><div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Raghavan</div><div><br></div><div><pre>Hi Raghavan, ft_regressconfound run on timelock data seems to return output with avg field. However, ft_regressconfound run on frequency data, does not return average. I see the avg field being removed. Is there a reason? >> Not intentionally, but not an issue either. You could still use ft_freqdescriptives to compute the average for you, but see my comment below. Question - Since ft_regressconfound outputs power spectrum of individual trials - 4D matrix (instead of average), can I simply re-average the power spectrum over trials to see the average power for that subject. Also, I need to run grand average (over subjects) before running statistics. I hope these steps does not distort the data. Please advise. >> Remember that the mean over trials is not affected by your clean-up of trial-by-trial variance due to head movement. Taking each subject's mean (unaffected) to the group level is an approach that will not benefit from your clean-up. In order to benefit from reduced trial-by-trial variance, you'll need a measure that depends on it, e.g. t-descriptive, neural activity-behavior correlation (for taking to the group level). Hope this helps, Arjen ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
><i> Van: "Raghavan Gopalakrishnan" <<a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">gopalar.ccf at gmail.com</a>>
</i>><i> Aan: <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">fieldtrip at science.ru.nl</a>
</i>><i> Verzonden: Donderdag 20 februari 2014 22:12:28
</i>><i> Onderwerp: Re: [FieldTrip] regressconfound and frequency domain
</i>><i> Arjen,
</i>><i> Thanks, I reduced down the time resolution so computation can go
</i>><i> faster. Now, m y matrix looks like this
</i>><i> hpicomptimefreq =
</i>><i> label: {204x1 cell}
</i>><i> dimord: 'rpt_chan_freq_time'
</i>><i> freq: [1x56 double]
</i>><i> time: [1x375 double]
</i>><i> powspctrm: [4-D double]
</i>><i> cumtapcnt: [59x56 double]
</i>><i> cfg: [1x1 struct]
</i>><i> trialinfo: [59x1 double]
</i>><i> beta: [4-D double]
</i>><i> ft_regressconfound run on timelock data seems to return output with
</i>><i> avg field. However, ft_regressconfound run on frequency data, does not
</i>><i> return average. I see the avg field being removed. Is there a reason?
</i>><i> Question - Since ft_regressconfound outputs power spectrum of
</i>><i> individual trials - 4D matrix (instead of average), can I simply
</i>><i> re-average the power spectrum over trials to see the average power for
</i>><i> that subject. Also, I need to run grand average (over subjects) before
</i>><i> running statistics. I hope these steps does not distort the data.
</i>><i> Please advise.
</i>><i> Thanks,
</i>><i> Raghavan
</i>><i> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:58:38 +0100 (CET)
</i>><i> From: "Stolk, A. (Arjen)" < <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">a.stolk at fcdonders.ru.nl</a> >
</i>><i> To: FieldTrip discussion list < <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">fieldtrip at science.ru.nl</a> >
</i>><i> Subject: Re: [FieldTrip] regressconfound and frequency domain
</i>><i> Message-ID:
</i>><i> < <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">2108167665.5423215.1392847118322.JavaMail.root at sculptor.zimbra.ru.nl</a>
</i>><i> >
</i>><i> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
</i>><i> Dear Raghavan, Good to hear it's working out for you. A short answer
</i>><i> would be 'no'. Reducing the size of your data matrix is likely going
</i>><i> to speed up computations. Your time resolution seems pretty high (1500
</i>><i> frequency estimations per single trial); do you need that many? Yours,
</i>><i> Arjen ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
</i>><i> > Van: "Raghavan Gopalakrishnan" < <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">gopalar.ccf at gmail.com</a> >
</i>><i> > Aan: <a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">fieldtrip at science.ru.nl</a>
</i>><i> > Verzonden: Woensdag 19 februari 2014 22:01:00
</i>><i> > Onderwerp: [FieldTrip] regressconfound and frequency domain
</i>><i> > Arjen,
</i>><i> > Thanks for answering all my previous questions. I was successfully
</i>><i> > able to incorporate head movements to my erf data. As I understand I
</i>><i> > have to do this separately for the time frequency data after keeping
</i>><i> > individual trials. I am interested in both beta and gamma bands
</i>><i> > [15:1:70]. my time frequency looks like this using wavelets,
</i>><i> > timefreq =
</i>><i> > label: {204x1 cell}
</i>><i> > dimord: 'rpt_chan_freq_time'
</i>><i> > freq: [1x56 double]
</i>><i> > time: [1x1500 double]
</i>><i> > powspctrm: [4-D double]
</i>><i> > cumtapcnt: [55x56 double]
</i>><i> > grad: [1x1 struct]
</i>><i> > elec: [1x1 struct]
</i>><i> > cfg: [1x1 struct]
</i>><i> > trialinfo: [55x1 double]
</i>><i> > After regressconfound
</i>><i> > hpicomptimefreq =
</i>><i> > label: {204x1 cell}
</i>><i> > dimord: 'rpt_chan_freq_time'
</i>><i> > freq: [1x56 double]
</i>><i> > time: [1x1500 double]
</i>><i> > powspctrm: [4-D double]
</i>><i> > cumtapcnt: [55x56 double]
</i>><i> > cfg: [1x1 struct]
</i>><i> > trialinfo: [55x1 double]
</i>><i> > beta: [4-D double]
</i>><i> > Regressconfound took about 1 hr and 30 mins, since its a huge matrix
</i>><i> > [55x204x56x1500]. I have 25 such blocks of data for 20 subjects. It
</i>><i> > will take an enoumous amount of time to process the data through
</i>><i> > regressconfound. Is there a workaround to make the processing faster
</i>><i> > or am I missing something. Any help would be of great help.
</i>><i> > Thanks,
</i>><i> > Raghavan</i></pre><div><br></div></div><br></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>fieldtrip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</a></div></blockquote><div><br><br><br>-- <br><div><span></span>Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour<br>
Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging<br>Radboud University Nijmegen<br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:a.stolk@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">a.stolk@donders.ru.nl</a><br>Phone: +31(0)243 68294<br>Web: <a href="http://www.arjenstolk.nl" target="_blank">www.arjenstolk.nl</a><span></span><br>
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
fieldtrip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>fieldtrip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br><a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</a></div>
</div></blockquote><div><div><br><br><br>-- <br><div><span name="x"></span>Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour<br>Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging<br>Radboud University Nijmegen<br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:a.stolk@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">a.stolk@donders.ru.nl</a><br>
Phone: +31(0)243 68294<br>Web: <a href="http://www.arjenstolk.nl" target="_blank">www.arjenstolk.nl</a><span name="x"></span><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
fieldtrip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl" target="_blank">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
fieldtrip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl">fieldtrip@donders.ru.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip" target="_blank">http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>