Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 43,961)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
1704 Mendeley
citeulike
17 CiteULike
Title
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2016
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1602413113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Eklund, Thomas Nichols, Hans Knutsson, Thomas E. Nichols, Eklund, Anders, Nichols, Thomas E, Knutsson, Hans

Abstract

The most widely used task functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analyses use parametric statistical methods that depend on a variety of assumptions. In this work, we use real resting-state data and a total of 3 million random task group analyses to compute empirical familywise error rates for the fMRI software packages SPM, FSL, and AFNI, as well as a nonparametric permutation method. For a nominal familywise error rate of 5%, the parametric statistical methods are shown to be conservative for voxelwise inference and invalid for clusterwise inference. Our results suggest that the principal cause of the invalid cluster inferences is spatial autocorrelation functions that do not follow the assumed Gaussian shape. By comparison, the nonparametric permutation test is found to produce nominal results for voxelwise as well as clusterwise inference. These findings speak to the need of validating the statistical methods being used in the field of neuroimaging.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,540 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,704 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 50 3%
Germany 34 2%
United Kingdom 29 2%
Netherlands 12 <1%
Spain 11 <1%
Canada 10 <1%
Switzerland 10 <1%
Japan 10 <1%
France 10 <1%
Other 69 4%
Unknown 1459 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 547 32%
Researcher 363 21%
Student > Master 230 13%
Student > Bachelor 112 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 103 6%
Other 349 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 596 35%
Neuroscience 262 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 231 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 228 13%
Engineering 93 5%
Other 294 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1881. 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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#270
of 7,424,221 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#13
of 43,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12
of 240,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2
of 906 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,424,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 43,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 240,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 906 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.