The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Valid conjunction inference with the minimum statistic
Abstract
In logic a conjunction is defined as an AND between truth statements. In neuroimaging, investigators may look for brain areas activated by task A AND by task B, or a conjunction of tasks (Price, C.J., Friston, K.J., 1997. Cognitive conjunction: a new approach to brain activation experiments. NeuroImage 5, 261-270). Friston et al. (Friston, K., Holmes, A., Price, C., Buchel, C., Worsley, K., 1999. Multisubject fMRI studies and conjunction analyses. NeuroImage 10, 85-396) introduced a minimum statistic test for conjunction. We refer to this method as the minimum statistic compared to the global null (MS/GN). The MS/GN is implemented in SPM2 and SPM99 software, and has been widely used as a test of conjunction. However, we assert that it does not have the correct null hypothesis for a test of logical AND, and further, this has led to confusion in the neuroimaging community. In this paper, we define a conjunction and explain the problem with the MS/GN test as a conjunction method. We present a survey of recent practice in neuroimaging which reveals that the MS/GN test is very often misinterpreted as evidence of a logical AND. We show that a correct test for a logical AND requires that all the comparisons in the conjunction are individually significant. This result holds even if the comparisons are not independent. We suggest that the revised test proposed here is the appropriate means for conjunction inference in neuroimaging.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
How Many Subjects Constitute a Study?
Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., & Worsley, K. J. (1999) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1999.0439 · Cited by 814
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Caplan, 2004, Cognitive conjunction and cognitive functions, NeuroImage, 21, 751, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.061 · DOI
- Friston, 1999, Multisubject fMRI studies and conjunction analyses, NeuroImage, 10, 385, 10.1006/nimg.1999.0484 · DOI · Paper page
- Friston, 2005, Conjunction revisited, NeuroImage, 25, 661, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.013 · DOI · Paper page
- Lazar, 2002, Combining brains: a survey methods for statistical pooling of information, NeuroImage, 538, 10.1006/nimg.2002.1107 · DOI
- Nichols, T.E., Wager, T.D. 2004. Conjunction inference using the Bayesian interpretation of the positive false directory rate. Presented at the 10th international conference on functional mapping of the human brain, June 14-17, 2004, Budpest Hungary. Available on CD-Rom in NeuroImage, 22
- Price, 1997, Cognitive conjunction: a new approach to brain activation experiments, NeuroImage, 5, 261, 10.1006/nimg.1997.0269 · DOI · Paper page
- Taylor, J.E., Worsley, K.J., 2003. Correlated conjunctions. Presented at the 9th International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, June 18–22, 2003, New york. Available on CD Rom in NeuroImage, 19 (2).
- Worsley, 2000, A test for conjunction, Stat. Probab. Lett., 47, 135, 10.1016/S0167-7152(99)00149-2 · DOI
Cited by
Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping
Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W. K., Bellgowan, P. S. F., & Baker, C. I. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2303 · Cited by 2,696
Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014 · Cited by 2,016
The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex
Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2994 · Cited by 2,082
Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors
Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027 · Cited by 1,779
Fractionating theory of mind: a meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies
Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009 · Cited by 1,656
Metadata
- Authors
- Nichols, T., Brett, M., Andersson, J., Wager, T., & Poline, J.-B.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 653-660
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100879297
- Cited by
- 1,880
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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: Valid conjunction inference with the minimum statistic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.005
- The paper
- Nichols, T., Brett, M., Andersson, J., Wager, T., & Poline, J.-B. (2005). Valid conjunction inference with the minimum statistic. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.005
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.
