-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The usage of surrogate analysis #95
Comments
@stdimitr can you please take over? |
Dear Vincent
Below, you can find a short description of the output of surrogates
function:
*p_value* refers to the statistical p_vlaue estimated by comparing the
original functional strength compared to a number of surrogates
*corr_sur* refers to the correlation of the surrogate time-series - this is
to understand how similar they are in the time domain
*surrogates* are the surrogates' time-series
*r_value* is the absolute correlation between the two time-series
corresponding to the two ROIs
Best regards
Stavros
Στις Δευ 3 Οκτ 2022 στις 4:44 μ.μ., ο/η vincent5290 <
***@***.***> έγραψε:
… Dear Makism or other users,
first of all, thanks so much for your contribution in dynamic connectome
mapping, which I learned a lot.
But now I am confused of the usage of surrogate analysis, which, from my
understanding, is aimed to identify the "true" connections between nodes.
Here is the procedure I understand:
firstly, I contructed a 4-D dynamic functional connectivity matrix
(coupling modes × temporal segments × ROIs × ROIs) for each participant.
Secondly, the time serials from corresponding frequency band, two ROIs
were extracted for surrogate analysis.
Thirdly, the dynamic functional connectivity values were compared with the
1000 surrogate values and then corrected by FDR.
Is that corrected?
Meanwhile, I have some confused points:
1. what's the meaning of the output "p_val, corr_surr, surrogates,
r_value"?
2. the surrogate analysis was conducted in individual level or group
level?
I would appreciate a lot if any one could answer my questions.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#95>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AENLNGZAS4OUQSN5T3VQWYLWBL5MJANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ3XBGJY>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Dear Makism or other users,
first of all, thanks so much for your contribution in dynamic connectome mapping, which I learned a lot.
But now I am confused of the usage of surrogate analysis, which, from my understanding, is aimed to identify the "true" connections between nodes.
Here is the procedure I understand:
firstly, I contructed a 4-D dynamic functional connectivity matrix (coupling modes × temporal segments × ROIs × ROIs) for each participant.
Secondly, the time serials from corresponding frequency band, two ROIs were extracted for surrogate analysis.
Thirdly, the dynamic functional connectivity values were compared with the 1000 surrogate values and then corrected by FDR.
Is that corrected?
Meanwhile, I have some confused points:
I would appreciate a lot if any one could answer my questions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: