↓ Skip to main content

Statistical Analysis of fMRI Time-Series: A Critical Review of the GLM Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
749 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical Analysis of fMRI Time-Series: A Critical Review of the GLM Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin M. Monti

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is one of the most widely used tools to study the neural underpinnings of human cognition. Standard analysis of fMRI data relies on a general linear model (GLM) approach to separate stimulus induced signals from noise. Crucially, this approach relies on a number of assumptions about the data which, for inferences to be valid, must be met. The current paper reviews the GLM approach to analysis of fMRI time-series, focusing in particular on the degree to which such data abides by the assumptions of the GLM framework, and on the methods that have been developed to correct for any violation of those assumptions. Rather than biasing estimates of effect size, the major consequence of non-conformity to the assumptions is to introduce bias into estimates of the variance, thus affecting test statistics, power, and false positive rates. Furthermore, this bias can have pervasive effects on both individual subject and group-level statistics, potentially yielding qualitatively different results across replications, especially after the thresholding procedures commonly used for inference-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 749 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 2%
Germany 8 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
France 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
China 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Other 13 2%
Unknown 692 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 210 28%
Researcher 131 17%
Student > Master 107 14%
Student > Bachelor 51 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 5%
Other 110 15%
Unknown 104 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 167 22%
Neuroscience 144 19%
Engineering 71 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 58 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 7%
Other 121 16%
Unknown 133 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,416,242
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,287
of 7,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,220
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#55
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.