Just to check, took a WB mask “mask+orig” (25379 vox), and then dilated by 5 voxels, so there was a much smaller WB-like mask (i.e., similar shape), called “mask_shrunk+orig” (4130 vox-- prob I shrank it too much, but for this comparison it probably shows what is relevant). I then ran 4 test cases of 3dClustSim using your two sets of ACF parameters:
A) mask+orig with ACF = 0.513804 5.16813 12.352
B) mask+orig with ACF = 0.520152 5.1862 12.4322
C) mask_shrunk+orig with ACF = 0.513804 5.16813 12.352
D) mask_shrunk+orig with ACF = 0.520152 5.1862 12.4322
In each case, the command I ran was like the following (substituting mask names and ACF param names):
3dClustSim -nodec -both -mask mask+orig. -acf 0.513804 5.16813 12.352 -prefix mask_0.513804_5.16813_12.352
For space, I am just copy-pasting results from some of the middle-range, most relevant cases of pthr:
A
0.010000 43 44 45 47 49 52 55 60 65 76
0.007000 33 35 36 37 39 41 44 47 52 60
0.005000 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 38 43 50
0.003000 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 29 32 36
0.002000 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 30
0.001500 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 20 22 26
0.001000 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 18 21
B) same mask as A, but other ACF pars
0.010000 43 44 46 47 49 52 54 58 63 76
0.007000 33 34 36 37 39 41 43 46 51 59
0.005000 27 28 29 30 31 33 35 38 41 49
0.003000 20 21 21 22 23 24 26 28 32 38
0.002000 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 30
0.001500 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 20 21 26
0.001000 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 18 21
C) shrunken mask, same ACF pars as A
0.010000 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 33 37 47
0.007000 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 30 38
0.005000 14 15 15 16 17 18 20 21 24 30
0.003000 10 11 11 12 12 13 15 16 18 22
0.002000 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 13 15 18
0.001500 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 13 15
0.001000 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 13
C) shrunken mask, different ACF pars from A
0.010000 22 22 24 25 26 28 30 33 36 43
0.007000 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 29 35
0.005000 14 15 15 16 17 18 20 21 24 28
0.003000 10 11 11 12 12 14 15 16 18 21
0.002000 8 9 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 17
0.001500 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 15
0.001000 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 12
Summary:
- for the same mask but different ACF pars, the results are quite similar, esp. as smaller p
- for same pars but smaller mask, the cluster sizes are uniformly much smaller (as expected).
–pt