3 ms·
Title should really read "fMRI" instead of "MRI". The referenced journal article is titled "Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflate
by jey 10y ago
Title should really read "fMRI" instead of "MRI". The referenced journal article is titled "Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates".
- sxg 10y agoThe same tools (AFNI, SPM, and FSL) are used in a lot of other MR research protocols as well - not just fMRI.
- acveilleux 10y agoThey are but 3dClustSim (the culprit) is essentially used only for fMRI.
- dewarrn1 10y agoThis is right and wrong: AFNI's 3dClustStim did contain a specific bug (since corrected) and is used for fMRI analysis, but the problem that the authors identified is more general than that and encompasses all of the tested packages.
- _delirium 10y agoFwiw there's a response to an earlier (preprint) version of that paper from some of the developers of the packages in question. Preprint version of the "Cluster failure" paper, from last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01863 http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01863 Response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08199 http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08199
- dewarrn1 10y agoFlaundin & Friston's response is interesting because it essentially endorses the findings of Eklund et al. (except for one element of the Eklund analysis that they suggest is a modest error). F&F believe that by setting one parameter correctly (i.e., using a conservative cluster forming threshold) the validity of their preferred parametric statistical approach is upheld. Eklund et al. might quibble because their take-home message is that non-parametric methods should be used instead, but their findings are not misrepresented by F&F. Regardless, an open and important question is how often other authors used a sufficiently conservative cluster forming threshold for their fMRI analyses. If nothing else, Eklund et al. will cause future reports to be more cautious in this regard.
- dang 10y agoOk, we consed an f.