 |
 |
Hi, Doug, I hope my reply is not too late. I came across similar questions while using FDR in fNIRS (functional near-infrared spectorscopy), where the multiplcity issue is rather modest (maximum 200 channels) compared to fMRI. If you are interested, you can refer to my sepcific article on the scope of FDR on fNIRS (functional near-infrared spectroscopy). I have used simulations to demonstrate that FDR( at 5%) can increase the sensitivity without compromosing on the specificty. If you need, I can send you the reprint. NeuroImage <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10538119> Volume <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%2369 68%232006%23999669997%23636441%23FLA%23&_cdi=6968&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C 000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7ae0f49d1301b100ade29f1fa7 4963d8> 33, Issue 2, 1 November 2006, Pages 542-549 Archana Singh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Doug Burman <[log in to unmask]> Date: Oct 8, 2007 10:52 PM Subject: [SPM] FDR correction To: [log in to unmask] I have an article that has been reviewed where the only major complaint was that the reviewer would not accept the results as valid because we used a FDR correction (p=0.05) -- even though our cluster sizes were fairly large, we also used an extent threshold of 25, and our Z-scores were generally greater than 5.0. The editor is backing him up, and refuses to publish our findings unless we satisfy him that our "result is not a chance finding". Many of our primary findings would survive a FWE correction if we applied a mask. I find it disturbing, however, that a FDR correction is not considered an acceptable method for multiple-comparisons correction by this reviewer / editor, and some highly-informative brain / behavior correlations in our study require this correction. Any suggestions on articles and explanations on the validity of the FDR approach? (I know this has been discussed on the list before, but I suspect the listserv discussion will not in itself satisfy the editor.) Doug Burman