GENERAL COMMENTARY article

Front. Hum. Neurosci., 28 June 2017

Sec. Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 11 - 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00345

Commentary: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

  • 1. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Unit, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig, Germany

  • 2. Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, University Hospital Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany

  • 3. Magnetic Resonance Center, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen Tuebingen, Germany

Article metrics

View details

63

Citations

11,2k

Views

2,4k

Downloads

In a recent manuscript, Eklund et al. (2016) reported inflated false positive rates in functional MRI (fMRI) using several common software packages. Here we would like to draw attention to an important aspect that was not addressed in this publication. Specifically, we would like to note that statistical inferences obtained using the random field theory depend heavily on a preprocessing parameter not discussed by Eklund et al. (2016), namely the spatial resolution to which the data sets are resampled and interpolated during pre-processsing. This resampling is needed to align the data to a common anatomical template that is essential to perform group analyses (also often called normalization). Eklund et al. (2016) used the default setting of 2×2×2 mm3. In response to Eklund's paper, Flandin and Friston (2016) used a different setting of this parameter, namely 3×3×3 mm3. Together with a more stringent initial cluster-forming threshold, they did not observe inflated false positive rates. However, the 2×2×2 mm2 setting is the default in two major software packages (SPM, FSL), and in previous work, Friston and colleagues Hopfinger et al. (2000) stated that resampling to 2×2×2 mm3 renders the analysis “more sensitive.” In other words, at present it is unclear what a valid setting for this parameter should be. Therefore, we think that it is extremely relevant to assess its influence on statistical inference.

For this purpose, we analyzed a group of 47 resting-state fMRI data sets with a spatial resolution of 3×3×4 mm3 and 300 volumes used in a preceding study Mueller et al. (2016). Using a strategy analogous to Eklund et al. (2016) we imposed various fake designs including block- and event-related types. We tested the following resampling parameters: 3×3×4, 3×3×3, 2×2×2, and 1×1×1 mm3. Using SPM12 with family-wise error (FWE) correction based on the random field theory, we first evaluated each data set separately. We found that with higher resampling resolutions, the FWE-corrected p-values decrease systematically so that more and more false positives occur. Figure 1A shows a typical result. We obtained a systematic effect in all of the 47 data sets (Figure 1B). We also observed a systematic effect of image upscaling onto smoothness estimation (Figure 1C). Furthermore, we performed a group-level inference in which all 47 data sets were pooled. Again, we observed that the FWE-corrected p-values decreased systematically with higher resampling resolutions.

Figure 1

In other words, it appears that there is a systematic dependence of the false positive rate on the resampling parameter with smaller voxel sizes leading to smaller FWE-corrected p-values and hence more false positives. While some dependence on preprocessing parameters may be inevitable, a systematic dependence of this type is clearly worrisome, because researchers may be tempted to interpolate their data until the desired statistical significance level is reached. Statistical inference should certainly not depend in such a systematic way on a preprocessing parameter that can be set ad libitum. Clearly, this issue requires further in-depth analysis.

Statements

Author contributions

KM communicated carried out the data analyses, and wrote the first draft of the letter. All authors assisted with the conceptual approach and contributed to the writing.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Professor Anders Eklund for his very helpful communications.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  • 1

    EklundA.NicholsT. E.KnutssonH. (2016). Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 79007905. 10.1073/pnas.1602413113

  • 2

    FlandinG.FristonK. J. (2016). Analysis of family-wise error rates in statistical parametric mapping using random field theory. arXiv 1606.08199v1.

  • 3

    HopfingerJ. B.BüchelC.HolmesA. P.FristonK. J. (2000). A study of analysis parameters that influence the sensitivity of event-related fMRI analyses. Neuroimage11, 326333. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0549

  • 4

    MuellerK.ArelinK.MöllerH. E.SacherJ.KratzschJ.LuckT.et al. (2016). Serum BDNF correlates withconnectivity in the (pre)motor hub in the aging human brain—a resting-state fMRI pilot study. Neurobiol. Aging38, 181187. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.11.003

Summary

Keywords

fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging, false positive results, false positive error, random field theory, family-wise error rate

Citation

Mueller K, Lepsien J, Möller HE and Lohmann G (2017) Commentary: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:345. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00345

Received

27 April 2017

Accepted

14 June 2017

Published

28 June 2017

Volume

11 - 2017

Edited by

Vladimir Litvak, University College London Institute of Neurology, United Kingdom

Reviewed by

Gerard R Ridgway, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Anders Eklund, Linköping University, Sweden

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Karsten Mueller

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics