>> 2) Is reporting meg data (voxel-level uncorrected p 0.05, cluster level
>> corrected p 0.05)
>> acceptable you think?
>
> Unlike the fMRI community we do not have well established standards
> for publishing findings of 3D source reconstructions. From what I'm
> hearing from fMRI people I understand that whole brain FWE correction
> is very conservative and is not usually used when people have an idea
> what they are looking for. They usually do a small volume correction
> around the area where they expect the response (of course this should
> be decided in advance and not post-hoc). I'd be glad if our colleagues
> contribute their thoughts on this, especially those who have
> experience with publishing results of distributed source
> reconstructions.
>
>
My (probably out-of-date) understanding is that one should be wary of
cluster-level correction when
the initial height threshold is too liberal (ie p<.05 uncorrected in
your example; p<.001 uncorrected
probably safer). But an RFT expert might correct me. You might also want
to consider using the
"nonstationary" extension of Hayasaka:
http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/ext/#NS
for cluster-level inference, particularly if you are using F-statistics.
Rik
--
-------------------------------------------------------
DR RICHARD HENSON
MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit
15 Chaucer Road
Cambridge, CB2 7EF
England
EMAIL: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/rik.henson/personal
TEL +44 (0)1223 355 294 x522
FAX +44 (0)1223 359 062
MOB +44 (0)794 1377 345
-------------------------------------------------------
|