Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply and the interesting discussion...
> I could probably go either way on unthresholded stat
> maps, but let me raise a few objections and see if it leads anywhere.
> Basically, I'm not sure I agree that unthresholded maps would be all
> that helpful. They do give the reader the ability to do coarse
> numerical comparisons that the authors (and editors and reviewers)
> didn't feel were worth explicit statistical comparison. But you don't
> need an unthresholded map to detect grossly unsupported inferences of
> the kind you describe, you just need an alert reviewer.
Is that true? How often have you seen the issue raised? The argument
would be that you cannot make any strong statement of localization of
function with the thresholded map; how many papers make this clear? -
"area A was significantly activated, but of course that isn't to say
the whole brain wasn't activated about the same amount, who knows?".
To get round this, you would have to compare activation in brain areas
directly, and this is extemely rare - don't you think?
It's true that the continuous map on its own does not provide you with
such a test, but at least it allows you a preliminary comparison, and
makes the problem much clearer - and to me this seems such a
fundamental problem that it deserves this attention.
Thanks again for the stimulating email,
Matthew
|