↓ Skip to main content

Alternative-based thresholding with application to presurgical fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Alternative-based thresholding with application to presurgical fMRI
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13415-013-0185-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joke Durnez, Beatrijs Moerkerke, Andreas Bartsch, Thomas E. Nichols

Abstract

Functional magnetic reasonance imaging (fMRI) plays an important role in pre-surgical planning for patients with resectable brain lesions such as tumors. With appropriately designed tasks, the results of fMRI studies can guide resection, thereby preserving vital brain tissue. The mass univariate approach to fMRI data analysis consists of performing a statistical test in each voxel, which is used to classify voxels as either active or inactive-that is, related, or not, to the task of interest. In cognitive neuroscience, the focus is on controlling the rate of false positives while accounting for the severe multiple testing problem of searching the brain for activations. However, stringent control of false positives is accompanied by a risk of false negatives, which can be detrimental, particularly in clinical settings where false negatives may lead to surgical resection of vital brain tissue. Consequently, for clinical applications, we argue for a testing procedure with a stronger focus on preventing false negatives. We present a thresholding procedure that incorporates information on false positives and false negatives. We combine two measures of significance for each voxel: a classical p-value, which reflects evidence against the null hypothesis of no activation, and an alternative p-value, which reflects evidence against activation of a prespecified size. This results in a layered statistical map for the brain. One layer marks voxels exhibiting strong evidence against the traditional null hypothesis, while a second layer marks voxels where activation cannot be confidently excluded. The third layer marks voxels where the presence of activation can be rejected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 2 5%
Germany 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 27%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Mathematics 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,281,005
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#471
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,152
of 200,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.