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
|