The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review
Abstract
Functional neuroimaging data embodies a massive multiple testing problem, where 100 000 correlated test statistics must be assessed. The familywise error rate, the chance of any false positives is the standard measure of Type I errors in multiple testing. In this paper we review and evaluate three approaches to thresholding images of test statistics: Bonferroni, random field and the permutation test. Owing to recent developments, improved Bonferroni procedures, such as Hochberg’s methods, are now applicable to dependent data. Continuous random field methods use the smoothness of the image to adapt to the severity of the multiple testing problem. Also, increased computing power has made both permutation and bootstrap methods applicable to functional neuroimaging. We evaluate these approaches on t images using simulations and a collection of real datasets. We find that Bonferroni-related tests offer little improvement over Bonferroni, while the permutation method offers substantial improvement over the random field method for low smoothness and low degrees of freedom. We also show the limitations of trying to find an equivalent number of independent tests for an image of correlated test statistics.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
Bootstrap Methods and their Application
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802843 · Cited by 7,350 · cited 2×
“While we do not assert that bootstrap tests are automatic, and indeed general linear model design matrices can be found where the bootstrap performs horribly ([35], pg.”
BackgroundNonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples
Nichols, T. E., & Holmes, A. P. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.1058 · Cited by 6,256
Self-citationAn improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance
SIMES, R. J. (1986) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/73.3.751 · Cited by 2,396
Multiple Comparison Procedures
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316672 · Cited by 2,389
Turner, R. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1082 · Cited by 365
Cited by
Cluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602413113 · Cited by 3,487
Self-citationNetwork-based statistic: identifying differences in brain networks
Zalesky, A., Fornito, A., & Bullmore, E. T. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.041 · Cited by 2,750
Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping
Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W. K., Bellgowan, P. S. F., & Baker, C. I. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2303 · Cited by 2,696
Prefrontal-Subcortical Pathways Mediating Successful Emotion Regulation
Wager, T. D., Davidson, M. L., Hughes, B. L., Lindquist, M. A., & Ochsner, K. N. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.006 · Cited by 1,761
“We assessed the family-wise error rate (FWER) for the mediation search analyses in each ROI by using a permutation test ((Nichols and Hayasaka, 2003)), which provides estimates of the chances of obtaining a false positive result anywhere in the ROI, accounting for the observed correlations among…”
Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., Vul, E., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.167 · Cited by 1,410
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Nichols, T., & Hayasaka, S.
- Venue
- Statistical Methods in Medical Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 419-446
- ISSN
- 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0334
- OpenAlex
- W1976954310
- Cited by
- 1,218
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/0962280203sm341ra
- The paper
- Nichols, T., & Hayasaka, S. (2003). Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280203sm341ra
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.