Cited by 186Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Statistical limitations in functional neuroimaging II. Signal detection and statistical inference

Open access
Petersson, Karl Magnus, Nichols, Thomas E., Poline, Jean-Baptiste, Holmes, Andrew P.·1999·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

The field of functional neuroimaging (FNI) methodology has developed into a mature but evolving area of knowledge and its applications have been extensive. A general problem in the analysis of FNI data is finding a signal embedded in noise. This is sometimes called signal detection. Signal detection theory focuses in general on issues relating to the optimization of conditions for separating the signal from noise. When methods from probability theory and mathematical statistics are directly applied in this procedure it is also called statistical inference. In this paper we briefly discuss some aspects of signal detection theory relevant to FNI and, in addition, some common approaches to statistical inference used in FNI. Low–pass filtering in relation to functional–anatomical variability and some effects of filtering on signal detection of interest to FNI are discussed. Also, some general aspects of hypothesis testing and statistical inference are discussed. This includes the need for characterizing the signal in data when the null hypothesis is rejected, the problem of multiple comparisons that is central to FNI data analysis, omnibus tests and some issues related to statistical power in the context of FNI. In turn, random field, scale space, non–parametric and Monte Carlo approaches are reviewed, representing the most common approaches to statistical inference used in FNI. Complementary to these issues an overview and discussion of non–inferential descriptive methods, common statistical models and the problem of model selection is given in a companion paper. In general, model selection is an important prelude to subsequent statistical inference. The emphasis in both papers is on the assumptions and inherent limitations of the methods presented. Most of the methods described here generally serve their purposes well when the inherent assumptions and limitations are taken into account. Significant differences in results between different methods are most apparent in extreme parameter ranges, for example at low effective degrees of freedom or at small spatial autocorrelation. In such situations or in situations when assumptions and approximations are seriously violated it is of central importance to choose the most suitable method in order to obtain valid results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.1999.0478

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Purdon P. L., Weisskoff R. M. Effect of temporal autocorrelation due to physiological noise and stimulus paradigm on voxel-level false-positive rates in fMRI. Hum Brain Mapp. 1998;6(4):239–249. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1998)6:4<239::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petersson, K. M., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., & Holmes, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
1999-07-29
Volume
354
Issue
1387
Pages
1261-1281
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2101239204
Cited by
186
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
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
functional neuroimaging, signal detection theory, statistical inference, low-pass filtering, multiple comparisons, omnibus test, statistical power, random field theory, scale space, non-parametric methods, Monte Carlo methods, hypothesis testing, model selection, spatial autocorrelation, effective degrees of freedom
MeSH terms
Biometry, Brain, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Monte Carlo Method, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, Emission-Computed

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