Hi,
> Your summary doesn't seem to capture the essence of the discussion, as far
> as I've been following.
You're right of course that my first three assertions don't capture
the discussion very well, but my purpose was to try and pull the
argument back to my original point, which I felt was getting lost.
> 1) The thresholded maps are useful for demonstrating reliable effects free
> of subjective bias, but care must be used in their description and
> interpretation to avoid misleading uncritical readers who don't understand
> the limitations of the statistical approach.
I know this is going to seem very tedious to everyone, but the
thresholded map does not address my assertion 1, and therefore doesn't
address localization. I feel this is a major point, as most of us
believe that localization is the main advantage of brain imaging. To
check - do you disagree with this? If so, why?
> 2) There may be important additional information to be derived from the
> unthresholded maps, which should be considered in interpreting results.
>
> The debate appears to be whether the responsibility for viewing and
> interpreting these maps should lie in the hands of the researcher
If we publish a paper, we need to present the results that convinced
us of our interpretation. Because the thresholded map is so poor for
localization, we need to present the unthresholded map, if we want to
talk about localization. In any case, given that it is easy to show
the 'significant' areas on the continuous map, the thresholded map has
no advantages that I can see.
Best,
Matthew
|