The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
False Discovery Rates for Spatial Signals
Abstract
The problem of multiple testing for the presence of signal in spatial data can involve numerous locations. Traditionally, each location is tested separately for signal presence, but then the findings are reported in terms of clusters of nearby locations. This is an indication that the units of interest for testing are clusters rather than individual locations. The investigator may know a priori these more natural units or an approximation to them. We suggest testing these cluster units rather than individual locations, thus increasing the signal-to-noise ratio within the unit tested as well as reducing the number of hypothesis tests conducted. Because the signal may be absent from part of each cluster, we define a cluster as containing a signal if the signal is present somewhere within the cluster. We suggest controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) on clusters (i.e., the expected proportion of clusters rejected erroneously out of all clusters rejected) or its extension to general weights (WFDR). We introduce a powerful two-stage testing procedure and show that it controls the WFDR. Once the cluster discoveries have been made, we suggest "cleaning" locations in which the signal is absent. For this purpose, we develop a hierarchical testing procedure that first tests clusters, then tests locations within rejected clusters. We show formally that this procedure controls the desired location error rate asymptotically, and conjecture that this is also so for realistic settings by extensive simulations. We discuss an application to functional neuroimaging that motivated this research and demonstrate the advantages of the proposed methodology on an example.
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
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: Pitfalls and recommendations
Woo, C.-W., Krishnan, A., & Wager, T. D. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.058 · Cited by 1,253
Topological FDR for neuroimaging
Chumbley, J., Worsley, K., Flandin, G., & Friston, K. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.090 · Cited by 492
Status and prospects of genome‐wide association studies in plants
Tibbs Cortes, L., Zhang, Z., & Yu, J. (2021) · The Plant Genome · doi:10.1002/tpg2.20077 · Cited by 470
Comparing connectomes across subjects and populations at different scales
Meskaldji, D. E., Fischi-Gomez, E., Griffa, A., Hagmann, P., Morgenthaler, S., & Thiran, J.-P. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.084 · Cited by 77
Ma, D., Holmes, H. E., Cardoso, M. J., Modat, M., Harrison, I. F., Powell, N. M., O’Callaghan, J. M., Ismail, O., Johnson, R. A., O’Neill, M. J., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00011 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Benjamini, Y., & Heller, R.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 480
- Pages
- 1272-1281
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2026906073
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.91
- 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: False Discovery Rates for Spatial Signals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1198/016214507000000941
- The paper
- Benjamini, Y., & Heller, R. (2007). False Discovery Rates for Spatial Signals. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214507000000941
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.