[color=#000000]Hi Adam,[/color]
[color=#000000]I see no reasonable explanation for that, other than having manually modified between the two analyses the source of either your functional data or your WM or CSF masks (since neither the functional data nor the WM/CSF masks are really touched or modified in any way by ART). Is there any simple way you can check what functional data files and Gray/White/CSF ROIs you were using in the two cases?[/color]
Alfonso
[i]Originally posted by Adam Kaminski:[/i][quote]Hello CONN community,
We ran through a preprocessing pipeline in CONN that included ART outlier detection only. We did this in December and then again in July with the same subjects and noticed some differences in the WM and CSF components (picture of an example subject attached). We think this led to different outcomes in the second level analysis. The CONN version was the same (18a). Does anyone know what might be causing this?
Thank you!
Adam[/quote]
[color=#000000]I see no reasonable explanation for that, other than having manually modified between the two analyses the source of either your functional data or your WM or CSF masks (since neither the functional data nor the WM/CSF masks are really touched or modified in any way by ART). Is there any simple way you can check what functional data files and Gray/White/CSF ROIs you were using in the two cases?[/color]
Alfonso
[i]Originally posted by Adam Kaminski:[/i][quote]Hello CONN community,
We ran through a preprocessing pipeline in CONN that included ART outlier detection only. We did this in December and then again in July with the same subjects and noticed some differences in the WM and CSF components (picture of an example subject attached). We think this led to different outcomes in the second level analysis. The CONN version was the same (18a). Does anyone know what might be causing this?
Thank you!
Adam[/quote]