Although, depending on the duration of the prescan calibration, there are
still transients in the BOLD related to (e.g.) the onset of the auditory
stimulation, or appearance of a visual fixation cross-hair, and these
transients may last longer than just 5 frames. I believe that Tim Laumann
had a poster on this effect at the 2015 OHBM.
cheers,
-MH
--
Michael Harms, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
660 South Euclid Ave.Tel: 314-747-6173
St. Louis, MO 63110Email: [log in to unmask]
On 7/21/16, 2:28 PM, "SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) on behalf of
Angstadt, Mike" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]>
wrote:
I believe this is handled by the 1000 Functional Connectomes project
already. They’ve indicated that they dropped the first 5 scans from all
sites data prior to releasing it, so the data that would have been
downloaded and used for the Eklund et al analysis should have already had
those first few scans trimmed off.
Mentioned here:
http://www.nitrc.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=6213
and here:
http://www.nitrc.org/docman/view.php/296/716/fcon_1000_Preprocessing.pdf
-Mike
--
Mike Angstadt
Research Computer Specialist / PANLab Lab Manager
Department of Psychiatry / University of Michigan
(734) 936-8229
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Ashburner
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] cluster failure article
Hi Cyril,
I'm struggling with the comment system for the blog (possibly due to my
version of FireFox). This is what I had intended to say:
In relation to the bit that says "some cases with the 1-sample t-test
where the nonparametric approach had elevated FWE, due to skew in the
data", it is important to stress that the first few scans of each fMRI run
should not be included in the analyses. It is reasonable to guess that
the skewing is due to these images being systematically different from
those collected later in the run when a steady state has been reached.
All the best,
-John
On 21 July 2016 at 17:14, PERNET Cyril <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear all,
There is now a blog post explaining in a different way the results the the
Eklund et al. paper. We tried to be as didactic as possible
http://www.ohbmbrainmappingblog.com/blog/keep-calm-and-scan-on
Keep Calm and Scan On
www.ohbmbrainmappingblog.com
BY: JEANETTE MUMFORD, CYRIL PERNET, THOMAS YEO, LISA NICKERSON, NILS
MUHLERT, NIKOLA STIKOV, RANDY GOLLUB, & OHBM COMMUNIATIONS COMMITTEE (IN
CONSULTATION WITH THOMAS NICHOLS) In recent weeks a...
Cyril
________________________________________
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) <[log in to unmask]> on behalf
of PERNET Cyril <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 19 July 2016 07:50:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] cluster failure article
Yann,
The paper is quite clear, if you set p higher than 0.001 then your blobs
becomes to big (under the null) for random field theory to be able to give
you the right cluster size threshold and the nominal type 1 FWER is higher
(ie you don't control as expected). This doesn't matter if its a one
sample t-test or a contrast from an ANOVA, it is still wrong (see 1994
paper from K Friston).
Dr Cyril Pernet
Senior Academic Fellow
CCBS / Edinburgh imaging
Sent from my HTC mobile phone
----- Reply message -----
From: "Yann Quidé" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [SPM] cluster failure article
Date: Tue, Jul 19, 2016 01:25
Hi all,
Just to jump on Mike's comment on wether an initial p=0.005 (+
cluster-wise correction) would be ok or not?
I understand there are less risks to report false positive blobs using
p=0.001 as an initial threshold, and the need to (at least) use a strict
p=0.001 (+ cluster-wise correction) when looking at within group
activation and/or correlation. However, would it become a problem to use
an initial threshold of p=0.005 (+ cluster-wise correction) when looking
at, say for instance, 2x2 (between groups) ANCOVAs with clinical
populations? This more liberal threshold will impact spatial sensitivity,
but will it impact the validity of the findings?
Thanks.
Yann
On 14 Jul 2016, at 6:31 pm, Mike <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for everyone's replies. However, I believe that many researchers
>who use fMRI analysis software are not with a firm statistical
>background, just like me. For practical reasons, we need a "guideline,"
>if any, to control multiple comparisons problem. Concerning cluster-wise
>thresholding, below is what I would follow according to Woo et al., 2004
>and the recent cluster failure paper in PNAS, but I hope some erperts
>here can comment a bit.
>
> (1). For SPM and AFNI 3dClustSim users, the first arbitrary
>cluster-forming threshold (CFT) is suggested to be not too lenient. 0.001
>is good, but 0.01 is definitely poor (I have no idea if 0.005 is ok or
>not?). Then you can report clusters that survive a FWE-corrected p<.05 at
>the cluster-wise level (but can I report FDR-corrected p<0.05?). The
>commonly used "P = 0.001 uncorrected with a k of 10 voxels" should be
>abandoned.
>
> (2). The commonly used "P = 0.001 uncorrected with a k of 10 voxels"
>should be abandoned (but it seems that many people still use it...).
>
> Besides, I have a naive question: since cluster-extent based
>thresholding might be more problematic, why don't we just stick on
>voxel-wise thresholding?
>
> Mike
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
**********************************************************
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not
be used for urgent or sensitive issues
________________________________
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.
|