Hi!

I guess this is the 100th post regarding this matter but maybe there is now some new info out there.

I really appreciate how thurough you guys have been in really addressing the issues that surfaced post the Eklund paper (he is actually my PhD co-supervisor). And as far as I can tell your approach is to reach a theoretically "true" false-positive cluster rate of 0.05 when all the thresholds have been set.

If I have a task that only makes sense analysing in a factorial manor, usually via 3dMVM, my only choice is to use the acf-method. If I want to be an honest scientist and to be able to say that "these results are multiple comparison corrected according to the AFNI-guidelines" I basically have to follow what is in Bob's magnificent power point presentation. That means that even though the resulting table shows cluster-sizes for p-values as high as 0.05 a true cluster alpha of 0.05 is only reached for p-values lower or equal to 0.002.

In practise, this makes it really hard to get any "publishable" results (also 3dttest++ -clustim and -ETAC does seem to be even more conservative). I have tried to reduce the testing volume by using only the union of all mask_epi_anat masks and then just use the GM portion of this.

If we find activations in "predicted" areas or areas that makes so much sense (since we e.g. stimulate the insula) but the cluster only remains when using the table value for a p of 0.005 instead of 0.002 is that really unpublishable? How would you deal with that?

I'm just looking for some tips or ideas, because we really want to follow your guidelines but using a per voxel p-value of 0.002 is making it difficult to keep any findings.

Again, we are really grateful for all your hard work!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2019 09:39AM by Robin.