Cited by 868Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

ALE meta-analysis: controlling the false discovery rate and performing statistical contrasts

Open access
Laird, Angela R., Fox, P. Mickle, Price, Cathy J., Glahn, David C., Uecker, Angela M., Lancaster, Jack L., Turkeltaub, Peter E., Kochunov, Peter +1 more·2005·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Activation likelihood estimation (ALE) has greatly advanced voxel‐based meta‐analysis research in the field of functional neuroimaging. We present two improvements to the ALE method. First, we evaluate the feasibility of two techniques for correcting for multiple comparisons: the single threshold test and a procedure that controls the false discovery rate (FDR). To test these techniques, foci from four different topics within the literature were analyzed: overt speech in stuttering subjects, the color‐word Stroop task, picture‐naming tasks, and painful stimulation. In addition, the performance of each thresholding method was tested on randomly generated foci. We found that the FDR method more effectively controls the rate of false positives in meta‐analyses of small or large numbers of foci. Second, we propose a technique for making statistical comparisons of ALE meta‐analyses and investigate its efficacy on different groups of foci divided by task or response type and random groups of similarly obtained foci. We then give an example of how comparisons of this sort may lead to advanced designs in future meta‐analytic research. Hum Brain Mapp 25:155–164, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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.20136

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Laird AR, McMillan KM, Lancaster JL, Kochunov P, Turkeltaub PE, Pardo JV, Fox PT (2005): A comparison of label-based review and activation likelihood estimation in the Stroop task. Hum Brain Mapp 25:6 -21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laird, A. R., Fox, P. M., Price, C. J., Glahn, D. C., Uecker, A. M., Lancaster, J. L., Turkeltaub, P. E., Kochunov, P., & Fox, P. T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04-21
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
155-164
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2060259639
Cited by
868
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 66
FWCI
8.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Wellcome Trust (051067)
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01lm006858-03)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM6858)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
activation likelihood estimation, false discovery rate, multiple testing correction, false positives, stuttering, Stroop task, picture naming, pain
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Pain Measurement, Psychomotor Performance, Stuttering, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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