ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Clarifying and extending permutation tests on brain map correspondence through mixed-effects modeling.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Permutation-based methods such as the spin test, Brain Surrogate Maps with Autocorrelated Spatial Heterogeneity (BrainSMASH), and the simple permutation-based intermodal correspondence (SPICE) test are widely used to assess correspondence between brain maps while accounting for their spatial autocorrelation. However, these methods define and evaluate correspondence in fundamentally different ways, making their results difficult to compare or interpret jointly. We address these limitations by introducing a two-factor mixed-effects model that decomposes brain map variability into components arising from inter-subject variability and spatial variability across brain locations. This formulation provides a principled way to characterize distinct sources of variability in brain maps and to formally link each correspondence test to the specific component it targets. Within this framework, we further provide the analytical expressions of the null distributions of the spin test, BrainSMASH, and SPICE in terms of model parameters. This unified framework clarifies the fundamental distinctions among the permutation tests, reveals their implicit assumptions, and provides a principled way to compare and interpret their results. Beyond clarifying existing methods, the modeling framework naturally motivates a bootstrap-based method that enables simultaneous inference of multiple forms of correspondence arising from different components of brain map variability. Through extensive simulations and empirical analyses of both structural (cortical thickness vs. sulcal depth) and functional (language vs. motor contrast) brain maps, we demonstrate that the bootstrap-based method achieves well-calibrated type I error, substantially higher statistical power, and provides a robust and comprehensive characterization of different forms of brain map correspondence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.