 |
 |
Dear Mike, Thanks for asking. We recently wrote a short comment on a preprint version of this PNAS article by Eklund et al, and it is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08199 The conclusion reads: > The results of these analyses [...] show that the random field theory > provides valid inference based on spatial extent, provided its > distributional assumptions are not violated (through the use of low > cluster forming thresholds or smoothing). SPM implements topological FDR: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.090 that uses results from the random field theory and therefore relies on the same assumptions. Best regards, Guillaume. On 11/07/16 09:22, Mike wrote: > Hi SPM experts, > > Does anyone notice a recent article in PNAS: "Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates" by Eklund et al.? Although they analyzed resting-state data and I have no much idea about cluster inference, I wonder if the default parametric methods in SPM (such as FWE, FDR) are not reliable? > > Thanks. Mike > -- Guillaume Flandin, PhD Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging University College London 12 Queen Square London WC1N 3BG