JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  2005

SPM 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Any Papers on Presenting fMRI Results?

From:

"Neggers, S.F.W. (Bas)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Neggers, S.F.W. (Bas)

Date:

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:30:47 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager