Cited by 252Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Power calculation for group fMRI studies accounting for arbitrary design and temporal autocorrelation

Open access
Mumford, Jeanette A., Nichols, Thomas E.·2008·NeuroImage

Abstract

When planning most scientific studies, one of the first steps is to carry out a power analysis to define a design and sample size that will result in a well-powered study. There are limited resources for calculating power for group fMRI studies due to the complexity of the model. Previous approaches for group fMRI power calculation simplify the study design and/or the variance structure in order to make the calculation possible. These approaches limit the designs that can be studied and may result in inaccurate power calculations. We introduce a flexible power calculation model that makes fewer simplifying assumptions, leading to a more accurate power analysis that can be used on a wide variety of study designs. Our power calculation model can be used to obtain region of interest (ROI) summaries of the mean parameters and variance parameters, which can be use to increase understanding of the data as well as calculate power for a future study. Our example illustrates that minimizing cost to achieve 80% power is not as simple as finding the smallest sample size capable of achieving 80% power, since smaller sample sizes require each subject to be scanned longer.

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.2007.07.061

Cites

22 of 22 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mumford, J. A., & Nichols, T. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Hammersmith Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Mumford, Jeanette A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
261-268
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967252112
Cited by
252
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 DA15410, R01 EB004346-01A1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
statistical power analysis, sample size determination, temporal autocorrelation, research design, neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Sensitivity and Specificity, Speech Perception, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results

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