Literature DB >> 33166643

Confidence Sets for Cohen's d effect size images.

Alexander Bowring1, Fabian J E Telschow2, Armin Schwartzman3, Thomas E Nichols4.   

Abstract

Current statistical inference methods for task-fMRI suffer from two fundamental limitations. First, the focus is solely on detection of non-zero signal or signal change, a problem that is exacerbated for large scale studies (e.g. UK Biobank, N=40,000+) where the 'null hypothesis fallacy' causes even trivial effects to be determined as significant. Second, for any sample size, widely used cluster inference methods only indicate regions where a null hypothesis can be rejected, without providing any notion of spatial uncertainty about the activation. In this work, we address these issues by developing spatial Confidence Sets (CSs) on clusters found in thresholded Cohen's d effect size images. We produce an upper and lower CS to make confidence statements about brain regions where Cohen's d effect sizes have exceeded and fallen short of a non-zero threshold, respectively. The CSs convey information about the magnitude and reliability of effect sizes that is usually given separately in a t-statistic and effect estimate map. We expand the theory developed in our previous work on CSs for %BOLD change effect maps (Bowring et al., 2019) using recent results from the bootstrapping literature. By assessing the empirical coverage with 2D and 3D Monte Carlo simulations resembling fMRI data, we find our method is accurate in sample sizes as low as N=60. We compute Cohen's d CSs for the Human Connectome Project working memory task-fMRI data, illustrating the brain regions with a reliable Cohen's d response for a given threshold. By comparing the CSs with results obtained from a traditional statistical voxelwise inference, we highlight the improvement in activation localization that can be gained with the Confidence Sets.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cohen’s d; Confidence sets; Effect sizes; Task fmri; fMRI

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33166643      PMCID: PMC7836238          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117477

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  20 in total

1.  Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting.

Authors:  Michael J Rosenfeld; Reuben J Thomas; Sonia Hausen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Effect Size Estimation in Neuroimaging.

Authors:  Marianne C Reddan; Martin A Lindquist; Tor D Wager
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 21.596

Review 3.  The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature.

Authors:  Joshua Carp
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 4.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 5.  Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research.

Authors:  Russell A Poldrack; Chris I Baker; Joke Durnez; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Paul M Matthews; Marcus R Munafò; Thomas E Nichols; Jean-Baptiste Poline; Edward Vul; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 34.870

6.  Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study.

Authors:  Karla L Miller; Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Neal K Bangerter; David L Thomas; Essa Yacoub; Junqian Xu; Andreas J Bartsch; Saad Jbabdi; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; Jesper L R Andersson; Ludovica Griffanti; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Thomas W Okell; Peter Weale; Iulius Dragonu; Steve Garratt; Sarah Hudson; Rory Collins; Mark Jenkinson; Paul M Matthews; Stephen M Smith
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 24.884

7.  Spatial confidence sets for raw effect size images.

Authors:  Alexander Bowring; Fabian Telschow; Armin Schwartzman; Thomas E Nichols
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI.

Authors:  Henk R Cremers; Tor D Wager; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Using SPM 12's Second-Level Bayesian Inference Procedure for fMRI Analysis: Practical Guidelines for End Users.

Authors:  Hyemin Han; Joonsuk Park
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 4.081

10.  The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project.

Authors:  Matthew F Glasser; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos; J Anthony Wilson; Timothy S Coalson; Bruce Fischl; Jesper L Andersson; Junqian Xu; Saad Jbabdi; Matthew Webster; Jonathan R Polimeni; David C Van Essen; Mark Jenkinson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-05-11       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  5 in total

1.  Improving the replicability of neuroimaging findings by thresholding effect sizes instead of p-values.

Authors:  Simon N Vandekar; Jeremy Stephens
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 5.399

2.  Higher Grade Glioma Increases the Risk of Postoperative Delirium: Deficient Brain Compensation Might Be a Potential Mechanism of Postoperative Delirium.

Authors:  Hua-Wei Huang; Xiao-Kang Zhang; Hao-Yi Li; Yong-Gang Wang; Bin Jing; You Chen; Mayur B Patel; E Wesley Ely; Ya-Ou Liu; Jian-Xin Zhou; Song Lin; Guo-Bin Zhang
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 5.750

3.  Spatial Bayesian GLM on the cortical surface produces reliable task activations in individuals and groups.

Authors:  Daniel Spencer; Yu Ryan Yue; David Bolin; Sarah Ryan; Amanda F Mejia
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Improving power in functional magnetic resonance imaging by moving beyond cluster-level inference.

Authors:  Stephanie Noble; Amanda F Mejia; Andrew Zalesky; Dustin Scheinost
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Brain-wide inferiority and equivalence tests in fMRI group analyses: Selected applications.

Authors:  Martin Fungisai Gerchen; Peter Kirsch; Gordon Benedikt Feld
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 5.038

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.