fMRI clustering and false-positive rates
Abstract
Recently, Eklund et al. (2016) analyzed clustering methods in standard FMRI packages: AFNI (which we maintain), FSL, and SPM [1]. They claimed: 1) false positive rates (FPRs) in traditional approaches are greatly inflated, questioning the validity of "countless published fMRI studies"; 2) nonparametric methods produce valid, but slightly conservative, FPRs; 3) a common flawed assumption is that the spatial autocorrelation function (ACF) of FMRI noise is Gaussian-shaped; and 4) a 15-year-old bug in AFNI's 3dClustSim significantly contributed to producing "particularly high" FPRs compared to other software. We repeated simulations from [1] (Beijing-Zang data [2], see [3]), and comment on each point briefly.
- Publication:
-
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
- Pub Date:
- April 2017
- DOI:
- 10.1073/pnas.1614961114
- arXiv:
- arXiv:1702.04846
- Bibcode:
- 2017PNAS..114E3370C
- Keywords:
-
- Quantitative Biology - Quantitative Methods;
- Statistics - Applications
- E-Print:
- 3 pages, 1 figure. A Letter accepted in PNAS