Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403749›Full record

ArticleCognitive neuroscience2017

Cluster success: fMRI inferences for spatial extent have acceptable false-positive rates.

Scott D Slotnick

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 82 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Brain-Machine Interface Induced Morpho-Functional Remodeling of the Neural Motor System in Severe Chronic Stroke.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Dissociable effects of LSD and MDMA on striato-cortical connectivity in healthy subjects.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Scott D Slotnicka Department of Psychology , Boston College , Chestnut Hill , MA , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an editorial (this issue), I argued that Eklund, Nichols, and Knutsson's 'null data' reflected resting-state/default network activity that inflated their false-positive rates. Commentaries on that paper were received by Nichols, Eklund, and Knutsson (this issue), Hopfinger (this issue), and Cunningham and Koscik (this issue). In this author response, I consider these commentaries. Many issues stemming from Nichols et al. are identified including: (1) Nichols et al. did not provide convincing arguments that resting-state fMRI data reflect null data. (2) Eklund et al. presented one-sample t-test results in the main body of their paper showing that their permutation method was acceptable, while their supplementary results showed that this method produced false-positive rates that were similar to other methods. (3) Eklund et al. used the same event protocol for all the participants, which artifactually inflated the one-sample t-test false-positive rates. (4) At p < .001, using two-sample t-tests (which corrected for the flawed analysis), all the methods employed to correct for multiple comparisons had acceptable false-positive rates. (5) Eklund et al. contrasted resting-state periods, which produced many significant clusters of activity, while null data should arguably be associated with few, if any, significant activations. Eklund et al.'s entire set of results show that commonly employed methods to correct for multiple comparisons have acceptable false-positive rates. Following Hopfinger along with Cunningham and Koscik, it is also highlighted that rather than focusing on only type I error, type I error and type II error should be balanced in fMRI analysis.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansclusterwise inferencedefault networkfalse clusterfalse positivefamilywise errorfMRImultiple comparisonstype I error

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.