Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Non‐parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging

Open access
Winkler, Anderson M., Webster, Matthew A., Brooks, Jonathan C., Tracey, Irene, Smith, Stephen M., Nichols, Thomas E.·2016·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

In this work, we show how permutation methods can be applied to combination analyses such as those that include multiple imaging modalities, multiple data acquisitions of the same modality, or simply multiple hypotheses on the same data. Using the well‐known definition of union‐intersection tests and closed testing procedures, we use synchronized permutations to correct for such multiplicity of tests, allowing flexibility to integrate imaging data with different spatial resolutions, surface and/or volume‐based representations of the brain, including non‐imaging data. For the problem of joint inference, we propose and evaluate a modification of the recently introduced non‐parametric combination (NPC) methodology, such that instead of a two‐phase algorithm and large data storage requirements, the inference can be performed in a single phase, with reasonable computational demands. The method compares favorably to classical multivariate tests (such as MANCOVA), even when the latter is assessed using permutations. We also evaluate, in the context of permutation tests, various combining methods that have been proposed in the past decades, and identify those that provide the best control over error rate and power across a range of situations. We show that one of these, the method of Tippett, provides a link between correction for the multiplicity of tests and their combination. Finally, we discuss how the correction can solve certain problems of multiple comparisons in one‐way ANOVA designs, and how the combination is distinguished from conjunctions, even though both can be assessed using permutation tests. We also provide a common algorithm that accommodates combination and correction.Hum Brain Mapp 37:1486‐1511, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, 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.23115

Cites

11 of 11 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

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 245

Metadata

Authors
Winkler, A. M., Webster, M. A., Brooks, J. C., Tracey, I., Smith, S. M., & Nichols, T. E.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-05
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
1486-1511
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2271543205
Cited by
245
References
11
FWCI
11.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non‐parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hbm.23115
The paper
Winkler, A. M., Webster, M. A., Brooks, J. C., Tracey, I., Smith, S. M., & Nichols, T. E. (2016). Non‐parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging. Human Brain Mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23115

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.