AFNI Message Board

Dear AFNI users-

We are very pleased to announce that the new AFNI Message Board framework is up! Please join us at:

https://discuss.afni.nimh.nih.gov

Existing user accounts have been migrated, so returning users can login by requesting a password reset. New users can create accounts, as well, through a standard account creation process. Please note that these setup emails might initially go to spam folders (esp. for NIH users!), so please check those locations in the beginning.

The current Message Board discussion threads have been migrated to the new framework. The current Message Board will remain visible, but read-only, for a little while.

Sincerely, AFNI HQ

History of AFNI updates  

Previous Message Next Message
Message List New Topic Print View
|
gang
December 31, 2019 12:26PM
Becky,

> Outside of choosing an arbitrary cluster size threshold, is this the only/(correct?) way to threshold results by cluster extent from 3dLME/3dMVM?

Determining a minimum cluster size is pretty much like defining where the sea level is (locations of moon and sun, global warming, etc.). So, correctness is likely in the eye of the beholder.

> Do clusters this large seem reasonable or is there potentially an error in my approach? We lose a fair amount of activity in biologically interesting
> areas this way compared to a simple pthr=0.001, cluster k = 10 or 15 voxels.

The sacrifice of small regions is a heavy price that the common practice of multiple testing correction in the field has to pay. In addition, artificially dichotomizing the statistical evidence is another endemic problem. See more discussions here:

[www.sciencedirect.com]
[afni.nimh.nih.gov]

Gang



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2019 12:36PM by Gang.
Reply Quote
RSS
Subject Author Posted

Cluster thresholding after 3dLME

rwaugh December 30, 2019 02:16PM

Re: Cluster thresholding after 3dLME

gang December 31, 2019 12:26PM

Re: Cluster thresholding after 3dLME

rwaugh December 31, 2019 01:21PM