Dear list,
Some more strong statements:
I couldn't agree more! Some people seem to think SPM will cure all pains for them, including doing science and making coffee. Without intimate knowledge of the underlying assumptions and statistical and mathematical theories one should either refrain from fMRI or have good support available.
The programmers did a great job in providing tools, we have to use them wisely. Perhaps a big DISCLAIMER when downloading the spm2 source code could be included ...
When one buys an expensive package for doing analyses one might expect more responsability from the vendor in guiding novices through the process, but SPM is open source and freely available. One should be really happy it is there, and value the merits of open source, which is a large community of scientists being able to contribute code and discuss their methods.
The list with issues to attend is a great idea, but still it might be hard for referees without much experience in imaging to use them in the right way. For some questions and designs one set of guidelines might aply, for other designs they could differ considerably. Although it helps for sure, I still would recommend Journal Editors to have imaging papers reviewed by experts in the field, or only accept comments regarding methods from the one reviewer that is obviously aware of what he/she is otalking about. It is mainly the Editors responability to have good quality reviews. I have seen too many examples of the opposite, which also might be another sign that the peer-reviewing system itself is up to a revision in the digital and internet age.
Cheers,
Bas
--------------------------------------------
Dr. S.F.W. Neggers
dept. of Psychonomics,Helmholtz Institute
Utrecht University
Heidelberglaan 2
3584 CS, Utrecht, room 17.09
the Netherlands
Tel: (+31) 30 253 4582 Fax: (+31) 30 2534511
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.fss.uu.nl/psn/pionier
--------------------------------------------
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens Rich Hammett
Verzonden: donderdag 17 maart 2005 19:28
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Re: [SPM] Any Papers on Presenting fMRI Results?
Dr. Stuart WG Derbyshire wrote:
>We can't expect all users of SPM to be experts. Several contributors
>have argued that the researchers, editors, reviewers and readers all
>need to take responsibility for ensuring the methods are
>appropriate. Indeed. But those who provide the stats tools also have
>a responsibility to ensure that the tools are user friendly. If
>diagnostics are necessary (to look at residuals, stds, unthresholded
>maps, whatever else is considered important), but are not easily
>accessible or understandable, then it is likely they will not be
>used or will be used inappropriately.
>
>Similarly, where there is a lot of argument it is difficult for an
>outside user to decide what to do. Somehow we have to provide
>reasonable guidance. I think Tom's internet page describing what he
>would like to see in any imaging paper is good (although it is one
>of my open browsers and I haven't read it in detail yet!). I might
>add that perhaps we should have a list of things all the experts can
>agree a researcher should absolutely do or not do (or risk immediate
>rejection) and then things a reviewer might reasonably look for but
>which are debateable.
>
>
Okay, I snipped out Stuart's disclaimers, so if it sounds
like he's making strong statements, it's probably my
fault.
Now I'm going to make some strong statements:
I agree that the software should be easy to use
and necessary functions should be accessible.
HOWEVER, I think that you are putting the burden of
the science onto the people who are making the
tools. IMO, the researcher should be coming to
the software knowing what he or she wants to do,
including understanding critical issues like
hypothesis rejection, and what assumptions they
are making to do their analysis. Those subjects
are NOT the responsibility of the programmers,
although perhaps programmers should make themselves
more clear that they are only providing tools.
The guy who makes the hammer is not the one who
builds the fine furniture, and the person making
the furniture should not rely on the hammer maker
to tell them when the hammer is the wrong tool,
for example, that a hammer should not be used
to drive a screw.
Does the scientist KNOW that he is assuming that
the residuals are gaussian and iid in time? He
certainly should, and should know what effects,
if any, there are on his analysis since that
assumption is known to be false.
The software can do a lot of the work for you,
but it shouldn't do the planning, understanding,
or interpretation, despite rumors of a new
SPM plugin that writes your methods and results
sections and submits your paper to three journals
automatically.
--
rich hammett SSCC/DIRP/NIMH
National Institutes of Health
Building 10, Room 1D80
10 Center Drive, MSC1148
Bethesda, MD 20892-1148
ph 301-402-8416 fax 301-402-1370
|