Lab3: writing up results and ANOVAs

with within and between factors

1
 Should be able to answer:
What are the independent and
dependent variables?
Are the conditions of application
met?
Compound symmetry?
Sphericity?

2
 Conditions of application
Normality:
fully balanced design, all subjects in all
conditions, all cells filled so probably safe
Compound symmetry:
Smallest covariance: .147, Largest
covariance: 39
Sphericity:
p>.05, fail to reject hypothesis that
pairwise variances differ

3
 Should be able to answer:
Are there main effects?
Contrasts: to learn about others, p. 371

4
 Summary of results
A significant main effect of coil was observed, suggesting
that the fMRI signal varies for coils with different numbers
of channels (F1,11)=37, p<.001), while collapsing across (or
irrespective to) acceleration level. Means reveal that signal
was greater for the 32 channel as predicted.
A significant main effect of acceleration was found,
suggesting that MRI signals differ for different levels of
acceleration (F2,22=13.6, p<.001), when collapsing across
coils.
Contrasts revealed that acceleration of a factor of 2 or 3
both differenced significantly from no acceleration (2factor:
F1,11=6.1, p<.05; 3factor: F1,11=57.1, p<.001). In addition, a
significant linear contrast was observed (F1,11=57.1,
p<.001) with a non-significant quadratic contrast (F1,11=0.0,
p>.1), suggesting that signal changes linearly with
acceleration. Graphs reveal that the linear relationship is
such that MRI signals decrease with increasing acceleration.
5
This is consistent with our hypothesis.
 Should be able to answer:
Are there main effects?
Interactions?

6
 Summary of results
However!! There was a significant interaction of coil and
acceleration (F2,22=9.9, p<.01).
We therefore investigated the effect of acceleration
separately for each coil.
12 channel: There is a significant main effect of acceleration
using the GG (F1.25, 13.8=18.1, p<.001).
Contrasts reveal that acceleration of a factor of 2
(F1,11=11.3, p<.01) and 3 (F1,11=131.1, p<.001) both differ
from no acceleration.
32 channel: There is again a significant main effect of
acceleration (F2,22=4.1, p<.05). However, contrasts
revealed that only acceleration of factor 3 differed
significantly from no acceleration (F1,11=7.9, p<.05). This
suggests 32 channel coil is less affected by acceleration
than 12 channel, as hypothesized.

7
Interpreting interactions via
contrasts

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
12ch 12ch
20 20
32ch 32ch
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
a0 a2 a0 a3
8
 Writing an abstract
Background
Objective
Methods. May include:
(Sample size calculation / power)
Instruments
Procedure
Sample description (or may be in results)
Analysis (or may be in results)
Results
Discussion
9
 Abstract format
Background: Advances in MRI hardware have led to coils with greater
numbers of channels, while software improvements have allowed MR data to
be collected faster.
Objective: Here, we set out to test whether more channels are better, and
how MRI acceleration techniques might affect signal strength.
Methods: Twelve subjects underwent fMRI with both a 12 (12ch) and a 32
channel (32ch) coil. For each coil, three levels of acceleration were tested
(none, 2factor and 3factor). Average MR signal was extracted and used as the
dependent measure in a repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: There was a main effect of number of channels (F1,11)=37, p<.001),
resulting from greater signal from the 32ch versus the 12ch. There was a
main effect of acceleration (F2,22=13.6, p<.001), with signal decreasing as
acceleration increased. In addition, there was an interaction between number
of channels and acceleration (F2,22=9.9, p<.01). To investigate the interaction,
repeated measure ANOVAs were performed for the simple effects. They
revealed a significant main effect of acceleration for both the 12ch, where the
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used (F1.25, 13.8=18.1, p<.001), and for the
32ch (F2,22=4.1, p<.05). Simple contrasts revealed that for the 12ch, signals
decreased significantly for both 2factor (F1,11=11.3, p<.01) and 3factor
(F1,11=131.1, p<.001) acceleration. However, for the 3ch, signals decreased
significantly for only the highest level of acceleration (F1,11=7.9, p<.05).
10
Discussion: This suggests that signals are greater when collected with more
 Next up: mixed design
ANOA
What if you have both within and
between subjects factors?
No worries, ANOVA can handle it

What are between subject factors?

11
Mixed design: conditions of application
1. Normality within each factor level or group
Robust to violations as long as fully factorial -> no
levels missing (like having only 2 of the three levels of
acceleration for 32 channel data or group).
This can also be tested via histograms and tests for
normality (see chapter 4??)
2. Homogeneity of variance:
Replaced by compound symmetry or sphericity in RM
ANOVA
But now need to check for between subject factors with
Levenes test
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups -> want nonsig
need to be careful because can be positive from small
deviations with large sample sizes
12
 Practical differences
Must define between subject
variables

13
 Practical differences
Can use posthoc tests to investigate
differences: Scheffe

14
 Practical differences
Making plots

15
 Practical differences
Levenes test

16
New output

17
 Now you try!
Expansion of MRI methods study from last week.
Again tested two different MRI coils (12 channel
and 32 channel coils), and 3 levels of acceleration
(a0,a2,a3). Same hypotheses as before:
Signal should be larger for 32 than 12 channel coil
Signal should decrease with increasing levels of
acceleration
In addition, half of the subjects (12) were scanned
with a resolution of 2mm (voxels 2x2x2mm) and
half (12) with 3mm.
Hypothesize that large voxels result in more signal.

18
 Should be able to answer:
What are the independent and dependent
variables? Are they within or between?
Are the conditions of application met?
Sphericity?
Homogeneity of variance?
Are there main effects?
Interactions: investigate with simple
effects and the contrasts
What can you conclude: try writing up an
abstract
19