↓ Skip to main content

Deficient approaches to human neuroimaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
95 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Deficient approaches to human neuroimaging
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00462
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Stelzer, Gabriele Lohmann, Karsten Mueller, Tilo Buschmann, Robert Turner

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is the workhorse of imaging-based human cognitive neuroscience. The use of fMRI is ever-increasing; within the last 4 years more fMRI studies have been published than in the previous 17 years. This large body of research has mainly focused on the functional localization of condition- or stimulus-dependent changes in the blood-oxygenation-level dependent signal. In recent years, however, many aspects of the commonly practiced analysis frameworks and methodologies have been critically reassessed. Here we summarize these critiques, providing an overview of the major conceptual and practical deficiencies in widely used brain-mapping approaches, and exemplify some of these issues by the use of imaging data and simulations. In particular, we discuss the inherent pitfalls and shortcomings of methodologies for statistical parametric mapping. Our critique emphasizes recent reports of excessively high numbers of both false positive and false negative findings in fMRI brain mapping. We outline our view regarding the broader scientific implications of these methodological considerations and briefly discuss possible solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
Germany 9 3%
United Kingdom 9 3%
Netherlands 4 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 258 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 27%
Researcher 70 24%
Student > Master 36 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Student > Bachelor 16 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 33 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 97 33%
Neuroscience 47 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 7%
Physics and Astronomy 12 4%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 46 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#637,638
of 25,347,437 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#279
of 7,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,761
of 234,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#12
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,347,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 234,524 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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 95% of its contemporaries.