Cited by 1,253Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: Pitfalls and recommendations

Open access
Woo, Choong-Wan, Krishnan, Anjali, Wager, Tor D.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Cluster-extent based thresholding is currently the most popular method for multiple comparisons correction of statistical maps in neuroimaging studies, due to its high sensitivity to weak and diffuse signals. However, cluster-extent based thresholding provides low spatial specificity; researchers can only infer that there is signal somewhere within a significant cluster and cannot make inferences about the statistical significance of specific locations within the cluster. This poses a particular problem when one uses a liberal cluster-defining primary threshold (i.e., higher p-values), which often produces large clusters spanning multiple anatomical regions. In such cases, it is impossible to reliably infer which anatomical regions show true effects. From a survey of 814 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies published in 2010 and 2011, we show that the use of liberal primary thresholds (e.g., p<.01) is endemic, and that the largest determinant of the primary threshold level is the default option in the software used. We illustrate the problems with liberal primary thresholds using an fMRI dataset from our laboratory (N=33), and present simulations demonstrating the detrimental effects of liberal primary thresholds on false positives, localization, and interpretation of fMRI findings. To avoid these pitfalls, we recommend several analysis and reporting procedures, including 1) setting primary p<.001 as a default lower limit; 2) using more stringent primary thresholds or voxel-wise correction methods for highly powered studies; and 3) adopting reporting practices that make the level of spatial precision transparent to readers. We also suggest alternative and supplementary analysis methods.

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.2013.12.058

Cites

30 of 30 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 results reported later are all significant at P < 0.05 (corrected) based on a voxel-wise error of P < 0.001, unless otherwise stated.

    “As the latter criterion has been recommended to avoid false positives (Woo et al., 2014), the results reported later are all significant at P < 0.05 (corrected) based on a voxel-wise error of P < 0.001, unless otherwise stated.”
  • A threshold of P < 0.005 and a voxel extent of k = 60 were deemed adequate to maintain a balance between sensitivity and false-positive rates.

    “Next, we performed a regression analysis with OXT methylation values entered as the predictor variable and contrast estimates (emotion perspectivetaking > shape match) as the criterion variable using a threshold of P < 0.005, voxel extent of k = 60, which is sufficient to preserve the balance between sensitivity and false-positive rates (55,56).”

    From Epigenetic modification of <i>OXT</i> and human sociability (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

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 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woo, C.-W., Krishnan, A., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
91
Pages
412-419
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169463832
Cited by
1,253
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 138 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 158 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 16
FWCI
59.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA035484)
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
multiple testing correction, spatial specificity, false positives, statistical maps
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Software, Cluster Analysis, Normal Distribution, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Neuroimaging

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