Independence in ROI analysis: where is the voodoo?
- PMID: 19470529
- PMCID: PMC2686233
- DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsp011
Independence in ROI analysis: where is the voodoo?
Abstract
We discuss the effects of non-independence on region of interest (ROI) analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data, which has recently been raised in a prominent article by Vul et al. We outline the problem of non-independence, and use a previously published dataset to examine the effects of non-independence. These analyses show that very strong correlations (exceeding 0.8) can occur even when the ROI is completely independent of the data being analyzed, suggesting that the claims of Vul et al. regarding the implausibility of these high correlations are incorrect. We conclude with some recommendations to help limit the potential problems caused by non-independence.
References
-
- Begley S. Of voodoo and the brain. Newsweek. 2009 VLIII, 25.
-
- Bennett C.M., Miller M.B., Wolford G.L. Organization for Human Brain Mapping Abstracts. 2009. Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: an argument for multiple comparisons correction.
-
- Chumbley J.R., Friston K.J. False discovery rate revisited: FDR and topological inference using Gaussian random fields. Neuroimage. 2009;44:62–70. - PubMed
-
- Fischl B., Salat D.H., Busa E., et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron. 2002;33:341–55. - PubMed