-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Separate phase analyses of one skill #84
Comments
Hi Hannah, If the two distinct phases have noticeably different smoothness, I can see why it could be considered artificial smoothing to look at them separately, and I agree that it would be, but only if one's a priori hypothesis pertains to the whole continuum. Let's consider two a priori hypothesis cases:
Regarding SPM assumptions and their possible breach: This issue is referred to as "anisotropic" or "non-isotropic" smoothness in the SPM literature, and refers to the fact that different parts of the continuum can naturally embody different frequencies. On the surface it seems like anisotropic could pose a problem for inference, but it actually does not. The reason is that SPM's smoothness estimation procedures implicitly correct for anisotropic smoothness, and that this implicit correction is equivalent to an explicit correction. First let's consider the explicit correction: An explicit correction for anisotropic smoothness is provided in Worsley et al. (1999). From the perspective of 1D continuum analysis, the correction is as follows: if the continuum contains Q nodes (lets say Q=101), then an explicit correction for anisotropic smoothness proceeds by first estimating local smoothness, which can be done using the gradient at each node. For all continuum measurements, even ones with apparently uniform smoothness, the numerical gradient is generally non-constant at each node. The second step is to calculate the number of nodes Q' for which the continuum has constant smoothness. This effectively stretches out the continuum (let's say to Q'=130.4 nodes), where the continuum now has constant smoothness (constant gradient) at every node, and the smoothness of this new continuum dataset is equivalent to the smoothest part of the original data. Then inference is conducted using the new continuum, which has Q' nodes. However, this explicit correction is unnecessary, because SPM's implicit correction accomplishes the same thing. The implicit correction, and the one that SPM procedures use by default, is to simply use the average gradient across the continuum. In other words, conducting inference using Q nodes and the average smoothness is equivalent to using Q' nodes and the greatest smoothness. To summarize:
Todd |
Hi Todd, Thank you for the helpful reply and thorough explanation - it's very much appreciated! Kind regards, Hannah |
Hi again Hannah, I'm writing with a brief follow-up in case you are in search of additional references regarding this issue. The paper below was recently accepted for publication, and is available in the paper's GitHub repository as "manuscript.pdf". The paper numerically explores a variety of issues relevant to non-constant smoothness. The main conclusions are that:
Todd |
Hi Todd,
We're currently looking at the sidestepping skill in two distinct phases (preparatory and stance) and are planning on running SPM analyses for each phase in isolation (0-100% for each). I understand that this approach may be considered artificial smoothing of the data and will likely increase the fwhm value and lower the critical t-value. Would it therefore be considered to be a breach of SPM assumptions? If so, is there anything that can be done to overcome this and still be able to analyse the phases in isolation?
Many thanks in advance,
Hannah
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: