Cited by 578Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Conjunction revisited

Friston, Karl J., Penny, William D., Glaser, Daniel E.·2005·NeuroImage

Abstract

The aim of this note is to revisit the analysis of conjunctions in imaging data. We review some conceptual issues that have emerged from recent discussion (Nichols, T., Brett, M., Andersson, J., Wager, T., Poline, J.-B., 2004. Valid Conjunction Inference with the Minimum Statistic.) and reformulate the conjunction of null hypotheses as a conjunction of k or more effects. Analyses based on minimum statistics have typically used the null hypothesis that k = 0. This enables inferences about one or more effects (k > 0). However, this does not provide control over false-positive rates (FPR) for inferences about a conjunction of k = n effects, over n tests. This is the key point made by Nichols et al., who suggest a procedure based on supremum P values that provides an upper bound on FPR for k = n. Although valid, this is a very conservative procedure, particularly in the context of multiple comparisons. We suggest that an inference on a conjunction of k = n effects is generally unnecessary and distinguish between congruent contrasts that test for the same treatment and incongruent contrasts of the sort used in cognitive conjunctions. For congruent contrasts, the usual inference, k > 0, is sufficient. With incongruent contrasts it is sufficient to infer a conjunction of k >u effects, where u is the number of contrasts that share some uninteresting effect. The issues highlighted by Nichols et al., have important implications for the design and analysis of cognitive conjunction studi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.013

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 conjunction analysis isolated a core scene-construction network shared by real memories, previously imagined scenes, and newly imagined scenes.

    “A conjunction analysis (Friston et al., 2005) of the main conditions (RM, IS, NS) against their respective controls (RO, IO, NO) allowed us to isolate the common brain network involved in the underlying core process of constructing, maintaining and visualising complex scenes.”

    From Using Imagination to Understand the Neural Basis of Episodic Memory (2007) · cites this paper as Friston et al., 2005

  • A conjunction analysis showed a common scene-construction network across real memories, previously imagined scenes, and newly imagined scenes.

    “A conjunction analysis (Friston et al., 2005) of the main conditions (RM, IS, NS) against their respective controls (RO, IO, NO) allowed us to isolate the common brain network involved in the underlying core process of constructing, maintaining and visualising complex scenes.”

    From Using Imagination to Understand the Neural Basis of Episodic Memory (2007) · cites this paper as Friston et al., 2005

  • A conjunction analysis of the main conditions against their respective controls isolated a common brain network including bilateral hippocampi, parahippocampal gyrus, retrosplenial cortex, precuneus, posterior parietal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

    “A conjunction analysis (Friston et al., 2005) of the main conditions (RM, IS, NS) against their respective controls (RO, IO, NO) allowed us to isolate the common brain network involved in the underlying core process of constructing, maintaining and visualising complex scenes. This network (see Table 6 and Figure 3) included bilateral hippocampi, parahippocampal gyrus, retrospenial cortex, precune”

    From Using Imagination to Understand the Neural Basis of Episodic Memory (2007) · cites this paper as Friston et al., 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friston, K. J., Penny, W. D., & Glaser, D. E.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Glaser, Daniel E.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-04
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
661-667
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4233058775
Cited by
578
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 38
FWCI
16.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
multiple comparisons, false positive rate control, minimum statistics, null hypothesis, fMRI data analysis
MeSH terms
Arousal, Attention, Brain, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Logic, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mathematical Computing, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

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