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  1999

SPM 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

*Statistical Effect Size* (fwd)

From:

ERIC ZARAHN <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ERIC ZARAHN <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:34:28 -0400 (EDT)

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)


Dear group and Jack,
	I think there are several interesting problems that exist in fMRI
for reporting effect sizes. One is the definition of effect: for example
when using basis functions, should one consider the total variance
explained by the basis set as the effect? Another is the temporal 
autocorrelation in fMRI data: noise varies with time scale,
so a direct report of signal:noise would not seem to be apposite. A third
is the hemodynamic response: two experiments testing the same neural
hypothesis with fMRI designs on two different time scales will not be
expected to have the same fMRI effect size even if the neural effects
are equivalent. A fourth is the variety of design matrices:
changing the identity of the design matrix could change the variance
of a given parameter estimate, thus changing the reported effect size.
	Thanks Jack, for bringing up a great issue to the group. I look
forward to reading what people have to say.

Eric

> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> I have a couple of questions about how statistical effect size is being 
> represented in SPM as well as in several recent articles from your group. 
>  Perhaps you can clarify this for me and also address a larger issue 
> related to the reporting of statistical effect size.
> 
> In your recent manuscript ("Multi-subject fMRI studies and conjunction 
> analyses") Figures 3 and 4 have Y-axes labels indicating "Effect Size" but 
> it is unclear what this measure of effect is with respect to.  Are these 
> values given in percent change relative to whole brain mean or the specific 
> voxel mean?  Additionally, in your email to Dr. Muftuler, you indicate that 
> in the paper "Detecting activations in PET and fMRI: Levels of inference 
> and power", Neuroimage 40, 223-235 (1996) that the 'component score scale' 
> estimates are completely independent of the inference (that is the test 
> statisitic or p value) and that if the global normalization was to a grand 
> mean of 100 then the scale is simply percent signal change relative to the 
> whole brain mean signal.  So then are these two things actually the same 
> thing - just named differently?  How do these values relate to other 
> measures of effect size that have been reported such as in Buchel et al. 
> (Science, 283, pp. 1538-1541, Figure 2)?  Is this again another name for 
> the same thing?
> 
> In a more philosophical vein, can percent change indices really be 
> considered measures of effect size in the traditional sense?  For instance, 
> classical effect size estimates are indeed 'adimensional', based upon the 
> inferential test statistic used to evaluate the statistical model, take 
> into account measurement variance, and are independent of the study sample 
> size.  They are typically taken to be population level estimates and 
> include such measures as Cohen's d statistic (for evaluating t-tests), 
> eta-squared (for ANOVA, etc), among others.  These measures are often used 
> to make estimates of the number of subjects needed to reliably obtain a 
> statistically significant experimental result.  Additionally, statistical 
> test values may be culled from research articles in the literature, 
> converted to effect size estimates, and assessed under meta-analysis, or as 
> been more recently discussed and demonstrated, pooled across individual 
> subjects in an fMRI investigation to provide evidence for consistency of 
> activation over a subject sample (e.g. sum(Z)/sqrt(N), Chi-square, or your 
> conjunction analysis approach).  However, the percent change measure is not 
> a standardized difference with respect to the variation in the measurement 
> but is  difference taken as a ratio to the whole brain mean or the mean of 
> some other stimulus condition.  Since the  method for computation of 
> percent change appears to vary between reports in the literature as well as 
> experimental designs, are there any troublesome distributional properties 
> to worry about that might express themselves if this measure is looked at 
> in meta-analysis?  Are there any advantages to reporting effect sizes like 
> the classical measures mentioned above in order to facilite better 
> comparison between studies, permit better estimates of statistical power, 
> as well as enable evaluation of the overall body of research? Could you 
> comment on this?
> 
> I appreciate your clarifying these issues and perhaps there are others on 
> the list can provide some additional thoughts on the broader topic how to 
> best report statistical effect size from neuroimaging studies.
> 
> Warmest regards,
> 
> Jack Van Horn
> 
> 
> *********************************
> John Darrell Van Horn, Ph.D.
> Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, NIMH
> National Institutes of Health
> Building 10 Room 4C104
> 9000 Rockville Pike
> Bethesda, Maryland 20892 USA
> Phone: (301) 435-4938
> Fax:     (301) 402-0921
> email:   [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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