Cited by 297Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Power in Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping

Open access
Kimberg, Daniel Y., Coslett, H. Branch, Schwartz, Myrna F.·2007·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Lesion analysis in brain-injured populations complements what can be learned from functional neuroimaging. Voxel-based approaches to mapping lesion-behavior correlations in brain-injured populations are increasingly popular, and have the potential to leverage image analysis methods drawn from functional magnetic resonance imaging. However, power is a major concern for these studies, and is likely to vary regionally due to the distribution of lesion locations. Here, we outline general considerations for voxel-based methods, characterize the use of a nonparametric permutation test adapted from functional neuroimaging, and present methods for regional power analysis in lesion studies.

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 · 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1067

Cites

48 of 48 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
Kimberg, D. Y., Coslett, H. B., & Schwartz, M. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Moss Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2007-07-01
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
1067-1080
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2014076973
Cited by
297
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH073529)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA014418)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC000191)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P30NS045839)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050836)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping, statistical power, brain injury, functional neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Statistics as Topic, Databases, Factual

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