Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,880

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

Nichols, Thomas, Brett, Matthew, Andersson, Jesper, Wager, Tor, Poline, Jean-Baptiste·2005·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.005

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Caplan, 2004, Cognitive conjunction and cognitive functions, NeuroImage, 21, 751, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.061 · DOI
  2. Friston, 1999, Multisubject fMRI studies and conjunction analyses, NeuroImage, 10, 385, 10.1006/nimg.1999.0484 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Friston, 2005, Conjunction revisited, NeuroImage, 25, 661, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.013 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Lazar, 2002, Combining brains: a survey methods for statistical pooling of information, NeuroImage, 538, 10.1006/nimg.2002.1107 · DOI
  5. 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
  6. Price, 1997, Cognitive conjunction: a new approach to brain activation experiments, NeuroImage, 5, 261, 10.1006/nimg.1997.0269 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 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).
  8. Worsley, 2000, A test for conjunction, Stat. Probab. Lett., 47, 135, 10.1016/S0167-7152(99)00149-2 · DOI

Cited by

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)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.005
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

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.