Cited by 82Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Cluster failure revisited: Impact of first level design and physiological noise on cluster false positive rates

Open access
Eklund, Anders, Knutsson, Hans, Nichols, Thomas E.·2019·Human Brain Mapping

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Methodological research rarely generates a broad interest, yet our work on the validity of cluster inference methods for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) created intense discussion on both the minutia of our approach and its implications for the discipline. In the present work, we take on various critiques of our work and further explore the limitations of our original work. We address issues about the particular event‐related designs we used, considering multiple event types and randomization of events between subjects. We consider the lack of validity found with one‐sample permutation (sign flipping) tests, investigating a number of approaches to improve the false positive control of this widely used procedure. We found that the combination of a two‐sided test and cleaning the data using ICA FIX resulted in nominal false positive rates for all data sets, meaning that data cleaning is not only important for resting state fMRI, but also for task fMRI. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work on the fMRI literature as a whole, estimating that at least 10% of the fMRI studies have used the most problematic cluster inference method ( p = .01 cluster defining threshold), and how individual studies can be interpreted in light of our findings. These additional results underscore our original conclusions, on the importance of data sharing and thorough evaluation of statistical methods on realistic null data.

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.24350

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • The method of correction for multiple comparisons used in the exploratory whole-brain analyses is probably biased toward false positives.

    “We note that this method of correction for multiple comparisons is probably biased toward false positives97,98.”

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

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eklund, A., Knutsson, H., & Nichols, T. E.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Eklund, Anders
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-15
Volume
40
Issue
7
Pages
2017-2032
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2796214606
Cited by
82
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (100309/Z/12/Z)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 EB015611)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  • Linköpings Universitet
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2013‐5229 and 2017‐04889)
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 › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
false positive rate, event-related design, two-sided tests, data cleaning, physiological noise, task-based fMRI, resting-state fMRI, null hypothesis testing, data sharing
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Electricity, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cluster Analysis, Artifacts

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