Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2009 Dec;4(4):417-22. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsp053.
An incredible amount of data is generated in the course of a functional neuroimaging experiment. The quantity of data gives us improved temporal and spatial resolution with which to evaluate our results. It also creates a staggering multiple testing problem. A number of methods have been created that address the multiple testing problem in neuroimaging in a principled fashion. These methods place limits on either the familywise error rate (FWER) or the false discovery rate (FDR) of the results. These principled approaches are well established in the literature and are known to properly limit the amount of false positives across the whole brain. However, a minority of papers are still published every month using methods that are improperly corrected for the number of tests conducted. These latter methods place limits on the voxelwise probability of a false positive and yield no information on the global rate of false positives in the results. In this commentary, we argue in favor of a principled approach to the multiple testing problem--one that places appropriate limits on the rate of false positives across the whole brain gives readers the information they need to properly evaluate the results.
在功能神经影像学实验过程中会产生大量数据。这些数据的数量提高了我们评估结果的时间和空间分辨率。但同时也带来了令人震惊的多重检验问题。许多方法已经被创建出来,以有原则的方式解决神经影像学中的多重检验问题。这些方法要么限制整体错误率(FWER),要么限制假发现率(FDR)。这些有原则的方法在文献中已经得到很好的证实,可以正确地限制整个大脑中的假阳性数量。然而,每月仍有少数论文使用未经适当校正的方法进行测试。这些方法限制了体素水平的假阳性概率,但没有提供关于结果中全局假阳性率的信息。在这篇评论中,我们赞成一种有原则的方法来解决多重检验问题——一种在整个大脑范围内适当限制假阳性率的方法,可以为读者提供他们需要的信息,以便正确评估结果。