↓ Skip to main content

Introducing Alternative-Based Thresholding for Defining Functional Regions of Interest in fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2017
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Introducing Alternative-Based Thresholding for Defining Functional Regions of Interest in fMRI
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00222
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasper Degryse, Ruth Seurinck, Joke Durnez, Javier Gonzalez-Castillo, Peter A. Bandettini, Beatrijs Moerkerke

Abstract

In fMRI research, one often aims to examine activation in specific functional regions of interest (fROIs). Current statistical methods tend to localize fROIs inconsistently, focusing on avoiding detection of false activation. Not missing true activation is however equally important in this context. In this study, we explored the potential of an alternative-based thresholding (ABT) procedure, where evidence against the null hypothesis of no effect and evidence against a prespecified alternative hypothesis is measured to control both false positives and false negatives directly. The procedure was validated in the context of localizer tasks on simulated brain images and using a real data set of 100 runs per subject. Voxels categorized as active with ABT can be confidently included in the definition of the fROI, while inactive voxels can be confidently excluded. Additionally, the ABT method complements classic null hypothesis significance testing with valuable information by making a distinction between voxels that show evidence against both the null and alternative and voxels for which the alternative hypothesis cannot be rejected despite lack of evidence against the null.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 26%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Mathematics 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,308,744
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,501
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,418
of 323,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#41
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 323,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.