JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  April 2011

SPM April 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Question about SPM's default masking threshold (i.e. defaults.mask.thresh)

From:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jonathan Peelle <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:26:35 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

Dear Stanford,

> After searching the archive I still have 3 questions about SPM's default
> masking threshold.  I apologize if these are naive questions, but I hope
> someone can answer them.
>
> 1)  Why is the default masking threshold value set at 0.8 (i.e
> defaults.mask.thresh = 0.8)?  Is there a significance to the value 0.8?

As you probably know, the idea behind the masking is to only estimate
a model in voxels that seem to have decent signal in them.  Because
signal in the brain is higher than signal outside of the brain (except
in the case of artifacts...), SPM uses a proportional threshold to
identify these voxels.  So defaults.mask.thresh = 0.8 will only
estimate the model in voxels whose mean value is at least 80% of the
global signal.

I don't know where the 0.8 value came from, but I assume it was an
empirical observation that it seemed to work well.  In my experience,
anyway, this certainly seems to do a fairly decent job of correctly
identifying voxels with decent signal.


> 2)  Is there a  down-side to lowering this threshold (other than including
> voxels with low/noisy signal and voxels that are not part of the brain)?

Not really—that's exactly the downside. :)  (Which should probably not
be underestimated!)


> 3)  Is there a minimum threshold value that would still yield principled
> results?

I don't think so—this will depend on your data.  As you lower the
threshold, more and more low-signal (including non-brain) voxels will
be included.  I think these are interpreted on a continuum.  If you
have a voxel in the brain with high signal, this is fairly easily
interpreted (and I think this is basically what the standard threshold
gives you).  You could imagine lowering the threshold to something
like 0.1.  In this case, let's say you get a voxel outside the
brain—this is easy to interpret in that it is unlikely to be
informative about neural activity, but then the usefulness of
including it is not clear.  You might also have a voxel technically
inside the brain, but with very low signal (say, in orbital frontal
cortex, or some other area prone to signal dropout).  In this case, I
would also wonder about the utility of including such a voxel.  That
is, even if you get a "significant" result, I don't know how
meaningful this is if the signal is very low.  In a group study I
would expect these results to be inconsistent and thus probably not
carry through, but it's still a bit odd.  I suppose what I'm saying is
that if it were my study, I would probably have to do a fair bit to
convince myself that significantly lowering the threshold would really
be providing useful information.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,
Jonathan

-- 
Dr. Jonathan Peelle
Department of Neurology
University of Pennsylvania
3 West Gates
3400 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
USA
http://jonathanpeelle.net/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager