Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments

763Citations
Citations of this article
490Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The analysis of functional mapping experiments in positron emission tomography involves the formation of images displaying the values of a suitable statistic, summarising the evidence in the data for a particular effect at each voxel. These statistic images must then be scrutinised to locate regions showing statistically significant effects. The methods most commonly used are parametric, assuming a particular form of probability distribution for the voxel values in the statistic image. Scientific hypotheses, formulated in terms of parameters describing these distributions, are then tested on the basis of the assumptions. Images of statistics are usually considered as lattice representations of continuous random fields. These are more amenable to statistical analysis. There are various shortcomings associated with these methods of analysis. The many assumptions and approximations involved may not be true. The low numbers of subjects and scans, in typical experiments, lead to noisy statistic images with low degrees of freedom, which are not well approximated by continuous random fields. Thus, the methods are only approximately valid at best and are most suspect in single-subject studies. In contrast to the existing methods, we present a nonparametric approach to significance testing for statistic images from activation studies. Formal assumptions are replaced by a computationally expensive approach. In a simple rest-activation study, if there is really no activation effect, the labelling of the scans as 'active' or 'rest' is artificial, and a statistic image formed with some other labelling is as likely as the observed one. Thus, considering all possible relabellings, a p value can be computed for any suitable statistic describing the statistic image. Consideration of the maximal statistic leads to a simple nonparametric single-threshold test. This randomisation test relies only on minimal assumptions about the design of the experiment, is (almost) exact, with Type 1 error (almost) exactly that specified, and hence is always valid. The absence of distributional assumptions permits the consideration of a wide range of test statistics, for instance, 'pseudo' t statistic images formed with smoothed variance images. The approach presented extends easily to other paradigms, permitting nonparametric analysis of most functional mapping experiments. When the assumptions of the parametric methods are true, these new nonparametric methods, at worst, provide for their validation. When the assumptions of the parametric methods are dubious, the nonparametric methods provide the only analysis that can be guaranteed valid and exact.

References Powered by Scopus

Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent

1654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Area v5 of the human brain: Evidence from a combined study using positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging

1098Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Localisation in PET images: Direct fitting of the intercommissural (AC-PC) line

316Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Voxel-based morphometry - The methods

7413Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data

5718Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples

5057Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holmes, A. P., Blair, R. C., Watson, J. D. G., & Ford, I. (1996). Nonparametric analysis of statistic images from functional mapping experiments. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 16(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004647-199601000-00002

Readers over time

‘08‘09‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 230

58%

Researcher 102

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 52

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 10

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 97

36%

Neuroscience 77

28%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51

19%

Medicine and Dentistry 48

18%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0