I don't know if there are any standardized procedures for SVC. I thought it was pretty standard to first use p < .001 (unc), and then when you do an SVC on your *a priori* region, you use FWE p < 0.05.
For fMRI reporting in general, you can see Poldrack et al. (2008), NeuroImage, and Carp (2012), NeuroImage.
For an alternative to FDR and FWE, you can look into TFCE (Smith & Nichols). You can also look into permutation tests.

Regarding your question of a more liberal threshold: 0.05 is pretty much arbitrary. Fisher wrote:
"The value for which P=0.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation ought to be considered significant or not."

I suppose any other choice for a cut-off would be just as arbitrary. You could argue that p < 0.10 suggests a trend, and warrants further study. But I think that, from the standpoint of a reviewer or reader of a Results section, "accepting as truth" a result with e.g. p=0.06 will depend on many aspects, including
* data quality (spatial & temporal resolution, lack/presence of artifacts and motion)
* number of subjects (maybe this is a pilot study)
* homogeneity of subject group (with a more heterogeneous group, maybe it is unreasonable to be extremely strict)
* fMRI task (if you're doing a bulk motor task with block design of ~15-30s length and don't see anything with FWE 0.05, there is probably something seriously wrong with your data)
* using a cluster extent threshold (e.g. if you have a cluster of say 25 voxels, then maybe seeing p=0.06 is worth another look)

and so on. And then there's always the possibility that your hypothesis is wrong, and unless you find a journal that will publish "negative results", you'd be out of luck.
On 02/24/2014 06:57 PM, Andy Yeung wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Dear Donald, Helmut, Chris, Marko and all,

The discussion is really inspiring and interesting. Apart from cluster size setting concern, shall we also talk about if there's a widely accepted series of procedures to carry out SVC by SPM? We came across with initial p thresholding, and voxel vs cluster SVC. Are there any literature out there giving some answers to such field? I think it's crucial to come up with a standardized procedures to perform SVC (as well as standardized way to report) so as to reduce misunderstanding. SPM8 manual only got a paragraph with three lines or something which surely looks rather thin and abstract for beginners like me.

And a major point raised here which worths further discussion is: biological reality. We've been talking FWE 0.05 as a statistical cut-off point for distinguishing significance. I strongly agree that the surviving voxels can be noise or just tip of an iceberg. In our current days, how is the acceptance for the ideas of more liberal FWE threshold/ FDR threshold/ uncorrected p threshold but with cluster size threshold? Matthew Brett suggested the ideas of more liberal threshold or unthresholded SPM reporting to explore and display the possibility of a bigger, if not whole, picture of brain activation. (https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=spm;664eed4.05) But that was 9 years ago already. Are there any changes in the mainstream thoughts?

Best,
Andy