 |
 |
Dear Matthew and Dan, How about the following compromise? Each result has two side by side displays, one side shows the continuous activity map. The other side shows a continuous log(significance) map. In this way people know which regions are significant and they know what the activity level was in that region. If space is an issue, we can generate a flattened version of the MNI brains for SPM, so that the entire brain can be visualized in one go and if people wanted focus on certain regions, they could extract out a square to bring attention to their point. Satra On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:04:03 -0800, Matthew Brett <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 >