4.7 Article

Does parametric fMRI analysis with SPM yield valid results?-An empirical study of 1484 rest datasets

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 565-578

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.093

Keywords

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Familywise error rate; Random field theory; Non-parametric statistics; Random permutation test; Graphics processing unit (GPU)

Funding

  1. Linnaeus Center CADICS
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Neuroeconomic research group at Linkoping University
  4. GPU hardware

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The validity of parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis has only been reported for simulated data. Recent advances in computer science and data sharing make it possible to analyze large amounts of real fMRI data. In this study, 1484 rest datasets have been analyzed in SPM8, to estimate true familywise error rates. For a familywise significance threshold of 5%, significant activity was found in 1%-70% of the 1484 rest datasets, depending on repetition time, paradigm and parameter settings. This means that parametric significance thresholds in SPM both can be conservative or very liberal. The main reason for the high familywise error rates seems to be that the global AR(1) auto correlation correction in SPM fails to model the spectra of the residuals, especially for short repetition times. The findings that are reported in this study cannot be generalized to parametric fMRI analysis in general, other software packages may give different results. By using the computational power of the graphics processing unit (GPU). the 1484 rest datasets were also analyzed with a random permutation test. Significant activity was then found in 1%-19% of the datasets. These findings speak to the need for a better model of temporal correlations in fMRI timeseries. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available