Cited by 6,256Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples

Open access
Nichols, Thomas E., Holmes, Andrew P.·2002·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Requiring only minimal assumptions for validity, nonparametric permutation testing provides a flexible and intuitive methodology for the statistical analysis of data from functional neuroimaging experiments, at some computational expense. Introduced into the functional neuroimaging literature by Holmes et al. ([ 1996 ]: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 16:7–22), the permutation approach readily accounts for the multiple comparisons problem implicit in the standard voxel‐by‐voxel hypothesis testing framework. When the appropriate assumptions hold, the nonparametric permutation approach gives results similar to those obtained from a comparable Statistical Parametric Mapping approach using a general linear model with multiple comparisons corrections derived from random field theory. For analyses with low degrees of freedom, such as single subject PET/SPECT experiments or multi‐subject PET/SPECT or f MRI designs assessed for population effects, the nonparametric approach employing a locally pooled (smoothed) variance estimate can outperform the comparable Statistical Parametric Mapping approach. Thus, these nonparametric techniques can be used to verify the validity of less computationally expensive parametric approaches. Although the theory and relative advantages of permutation approaches have been discussed by various authors, there has been no accessible explication of the method, and no freely distributed software implementing it. Consequently, there have been few practical applications of the technique. This article, and the accompanying MATLAB software, attempts to address these issues. The standard nonparametric randomization and permutation testing ideas are developed at an accessible level, using practical examples from functional neuroimaging, and the extensions for multiple comparisons described. Three worked examples from PET and f MRI are presented, with discussion, and comparisons with standard parametric approaches made where appropriate. Practical considerations are given throughout, and relevant statistical concepts are expounded in appendices. Hum. Brain Mapping 15:1–25, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.1058

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 56 references

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1080/00223980.1964.9916711 · DOI
  2. Fisher RA, 1990, Bennett JH
  3. HolmesAP(1994): Statistical issues in functional brain mapping PhD thesis. University of Glasgow.http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/papers/APH_thesis
  4. Pitman EJG, 1937, Significance tests which may be applied to samples from any population. II. The correlation coefficient test, J R Stat Soc, 4, 224
  5. Worsley KJ, 1995, A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation, Hum Brain Mapp, 4, 58, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1996)4:1<58::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,112

Metadata

Authors
Nichols, T. E., & Holmes, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10-15
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
1-25
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2138790588
Cited by
6,256
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 223 · 2025: 264 · 2024: 255 · 2023: 275 · 2022: 321 · 2021: 350 · 2020: 392 · 2019: 368 · 2018: 381 · 2017: 368 · 2016: 343 · 2015: 385 · 2014: 365 · 2013: 356 · 2012: 314
FWCI
16.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
permutation tests, functional neuroimaging, multiple testing correction, statistical parametric mapping, random field theory, PET, functional MRI, population effects, MATLAB software
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Statistical Distributions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review