Hi,
As mentioned in OHBM's COBIDAS report,
http://www.humanbrainmapping.org/COBIDASreport (section 6)
a way forward might be to upload the (unthresholded) statistical map in
an online public repository such as NeuroVault:
https://neurovault.org/
Some journals also allow NIfTI files as supplementary material, see e.g.
NeuroImage:
https://www.elsevier.com/journals/neuroimage/1053-8119/guide-for-authors#88700
Best regards,
Guillaume.
On 04/09/17 15:25, MRI More wrote:
> Dear Bianca,
>
>> though I am still worried that this practice of reporting of cluster-peaks leads to misunderstandings on the nature of cluster correction (and
>> leads people/readers to infer spatial specificity that is not there).
>
> Also don't forget the smoothing. Peaks, clusters are usually labeled based on unsmoothed maximum probability maps (same for region of interest analyses), and T maps are often mapped onto unsmoothed anatomical high-res data, which implies anatomical precision that simply doesn't exist and can also be very misleading in case the geometric artefacts in the EPIs are rather large (e.g. OFC). It's an established routine though. It's also established to present thresholded data, hiding the rest.
>
>> In the past, I have used my strategy 1 for this, but this then means no coordinates are reported
>
> IMO this is bad. In case one wants to find out the exact location of the cluster one has to rely on figures then, which can be very misleading (especially surface renderings). For the gross localization labels can do it, but their use is limited as well as parcellations can differ quite a bit (e.g. how many frontal or cingulate regions). Thus one would also have to consult the corresponding atlas file first, which might not be implemented in the default software. Thus I'd suggest to report *some* coordinates, be it peak coordinates or center of mass. In that case the reader only has to find out which MNI version you are refering to and/or whether preprocessing has led to any deviations (e.g. a non-MNI Dartel template) ;)
>
>> where I have no cluster-peaks to report
>
> I would report the center of the mass then, which might be sufficient in most instances. In case the center came to lie outside the cluster I'd prefer a different measure though. For larger clusters the range seems to make sense, although it might be very difficult to infer the exact form of the cluster without an additional figure.
>
> Best regards
>
> Helmut
>
--
Guillaume Flandin, PhD
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging
University College London
12 Queen Square
London WC1N 3BG
|