↓ Skip to main content

Misconceptions in the use of the General Linear Model applied to functional MRI: a tutorial for junior neuro-imagers

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
591 Mendeley
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
Misconceptions in the use of the General Linear Model applied to functional MRI: a tutorial for junior neuro-imagers
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cyril R. Pernet

Abstract

This tutorial presents several misconceptions related to the use the General Linear Model (GLM) in functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). The goal is not to present mathematical proofs but to educate using examples and computer code (in Matlab). In particular, I address issues related to (1) model parameterization (modeling baseline or null events) and scaling of the design matrix; (2) hemodynamic modeling using basis functions, and (3) computing percentage signal change. Using a simple controlled block design and an alternating block design, I first show why "baseline" should not be modeled (model over-parameterization), and how this affects effect sizes. I also show that, depending on what is tested; over-parameterization does not necessarily impact upon statistical results. Next, using a simple periodic vs. random event related design, I show how the hemodynamic model (hemodynamic function only or using derivatives) can affects parameter estimates, as well as detail the role of orthogonalization. I then relate the above results to the computation of percentage signal change. Finally, I discuss how these issues affect group analyses and give some recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 591 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 13 2%
United States 13 2%
United Kingdom 7 1%
Belgium 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 540 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 180 30%
Researcher 128 22%
Student > Master 75 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 5%
Student > Postgraduate 27 5%
Other 93 16%
Unknown 58 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 171 29%
Neuroscience 148 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 7%
Engineering 22 4%
Other 61 10%
Unknown 107 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 21 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,312,409
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#586
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,241
of 319,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 319,281 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.