5 ms·
Fwiw 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 "Cluste
by _delirium 10y ago
Fwiw 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.