ArticleCognitive neuroscience2017
A defense of using resting-state fMRI as null data for estimating false positive rates.
Article in Cognitive neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of extended-release naltrexone on the brain response to drug-related stimuli in patients with opioid use disorder.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2018Trial
- Neuroplasticity in post-stroke aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional imaging studies of reorganization of language processing.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021Article
- Evaluating Alternative Correction Methods for Multiple Comparison in Functional Neuroimaging Research.Brain sciences · 2019Article
- Cluster failure revisited: Impact of first level design and physiological noise on cluster false positive rates.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
- Insula Sensitivity to Unfairness in Alcohol Use Disorder.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent Editorial in Cognitive Neuroscience reconsiders the findings of our work on the accuracy of false positive rate control with cluster inference in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), in particular criticizing our use of resting-state fMRI as a source for null data in the evaluation of task fMRI methods. We defend this use of resting fMRI data, as while there is much structure in this data, we argue it is representative of task data noise and task analysis software should be able to accommodate this noise. We also discuss a potential problem with Slotnick's own method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28140785What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.