The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI
Open accessAbstract
Statistically underpowered studies can result in experimental failure even when all other experimental considerations have been addressed impeccably. In fMRI the combination of a large number of dependent variables, a relatively small number of observations (subjects), and a need to correct for multiple comparisons can decrease statistical power dramatically. This problem has been clearly addressed yet remains controversial-especially in regards to the expected effect sizes in fMRI, and especially for between-subjects effects such as group comparisons and brain-behavior correlations. We aimed to clarify the power problem by considering and contrasting two simulated scenarios of such possible brain-behavior correlations: weak diffuse effects and strong localized effects. Sampling from these scenarios shows that, particularly in the weak diffuse scenario, common sample sizes (n = 20-30) display extremely low statistical power, poorly represent the actual effects in the full sample, and show large variation on subsequent replications. Empirical data from the Human Connectome Project resembles the weak diffuse scenario much more than the localized strong scenario, which underscores the extent of the power problem for many studies. Possible solutions to the power problem include increasing the sample size, using less stringent thresholds, or focusing on a region-of-interest. However, these approaches are not always feasible and some have major drawbacks. The most prominent solutions that may help address the power problem include model-based (multivariate) prediction methods and meta-analyses with related synthesis-oriented approaches.
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
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2575 · Cited by 11,820
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 1×
“As noted above, questions about statistical power in neuroscience research in general have recently attracted considerable attention [1,6].”
BackgroundSimmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
SMITH, S., & NICHOLS, T. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061 · Cited by 5,250
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data.
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Nichols, T. E., Van Essen, D. C., & Wager, T. D. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1635 · Cited by 3,686
Self-citation
Cited by
Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence
Keysers, C., Gazzola, V., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4 · Cited by 654
Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117164 · Cited by 453
Ten simple rules for predictive modeling of individual differences in neuroimaging
Scheinost, D., Noble, S., Horien, C., Greene, A. S., Lake, E. M., Salehi, M., Gao, S., Shen, X., O'Connor, D., Barron, D. S., et al. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.057 · Cited by 381
Connectome-based prediction of cocaine abstinence
Yip, S. W., Scheinost, D., Potenza, M. N., & Carroll, K. M. (2019) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17101147 · Cited by 196
Meta-analysis of neural systems underlying placebo analgesia from individual participant fMRI data
Zunhammer, M., Spisák, T., Wager, T. D., Bingel, U., The Placebo Imaging Consortium, Atlas, L., Benedetti, F., Büchel, C., Choi, J. C., Colloca, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21179-3 · Cited by 171
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cremers, H. R., Wager, T. D., & Yarkoni, T.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-11-20
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e0184923
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2768727455
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 17.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0184923
- The paper
- Cremers, H. R., Wager, T. D., & Yarkoni, T. (2017). The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184923
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.