These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29434545)
1. An Updated Survey on Statistical Thresholding and Sample Size of fMRI Studies. Yeung AWK Front Hum Neurosci; 2018; 12():16. PubMed ID: 29434545 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Eklund A; Nichols TE; Knutsson H Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2016 Jul; 113(28):7900-5. PubMed ID: 27357684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cluster-level statistical inference in fMRI datasets: The unexpected behavior of random fields in high dimensions. Bansal R; Peterson BS Magn Reson Imaging; 2018 Jun; 49():101-115. PubMed ID: 29408478 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: pitfalls and recommendations. Woo CW; Krishnan A; Wager TD Neuroimage; 2014 May; 91():412-9. PubMed ID: 24412399 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bayes estimate of primary threshold in clusterwise functional magnetic resonance imaging inferences. Ge Y; Hare S; Chen G; Waltz JA; Kochunov P; Elliot Hong L; Chen S Stat Med; 2021 Nov; 40(25):5673-5689. PubMed ID: 34309050 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Resting-state fMRI data reflects default network activity rather than null data: A defense of commonly employed methods to correct for multiple comparisons. Slotnick SD Cogn Neurosci; 2017 Jul; 8(3):141-143. PubMed ID: 28002981 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating methods of correcting for multiple comparisons implemented in SPM12 in social neuroscience fMRI studies: an example from moral psychology. Han H; Glenn AL Soc Neurosci; 2018 Jun; 13(3):257-267. PubMed ID: 28446105 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Exploring the impact of analysis software on task fMRI results. Bowring A; Maumet C; Nichols TE Hum Brain Mapp; 2019 Aug; 40(11):3362-3384. PubMed ID: 31050106 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reproducibility and Bias in Healthy Brain Segmentation: Comparison of Two Popular Neuroimaging Platforms. Tudorascu DL; Karim HT; Maronge JM; Alhilali L; Fakhran S; Aizenstein HJ; Muschelli J; Crainiceanu CM Front Neurosci; 2016; 10():503. PubMed ID: 27881948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Now you see it, now you don't: statistical and methodological considerations in fMRI. Loring DW; Meador KJ; Allison JD; Pillai JJ; Lavin T; Lee GP; Balan A; Dave V Epilepsy Behav; 2002 Dec; 3(6):539-547. PubMed ID: 12609249 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. FMRI Clustering in AFNI: False-Positive Rates Redux. Cox RW; Chen G; Glen DR; Reynolds RC; Taylor PA Brain Connect; 2017 Apr; 7(3):152-171. PubMed ID: 28398812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accounting for Non-Gaussian Sources of Spatial Correlation in Parametric Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Paradigms I: Revisiting Cluster-Based Inferences. Gopinath K; Krishnamurthy V; Sathian K Brain Connect; 2018 Feb; 8(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 28927289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups. Niedhammer I; Milner A; Witt K; Klingelschmidt J; Khireddine-Medouni I; Alexopoulos EC; Toivanen S; Chastang JF; LaMontagne AD Scand J Work Environ Health; 2018 Jan; 44(1):108-110. PubMed ID: 29218357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accounting for Non-Gaussian Sources of Spatial Correlation in Parametric Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Paradigms II: A Method to Obtain First-Level Analysis Residuals with Uniform and Gaussian Spatial Autocorrelation Function and Independent and Identically Distributed Time-Series. Gopinath K; Krishnamurthy V; Lacey S; Sathian K Brain Connect; 2018 Feb; 8(1):10-21. PubMed ID: 29161884 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Equitable Thresholding and Clustering: A Novel Method for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clustering in AFNI. Cox RW Brain Connect; 2019 Sep; 9(7):529-538. PubMed ID: 31115252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of random-field-theory and false-discovery-rate inference results in the analysis of registered one-dimensional biomechanical datasets. Naouma H; Pataky TC PeerJ; 2019; 7():e8189. PubMed ID: 31844582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Manipulating brain connectivity with δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol: a pharmacological resting state FMRI study. Klumpers LE; Cole DM; Khalili-Mahani N; Soeter RP; Te Beek ET; Rombouts SA; van Gerven JM Neuroimage; 2012 Nov; 63(3):1701-11. PubMed ID: 22885247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Meta-analysis: Problems with Russian Publications. Verbitskaya EV Int J Risk Saf Med; 2015; 27 Suppl 1():S89-90. PubMed ID: 26639728 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Detecting activations in PET and fMRI: levels of inference and power. Friston KJ; Holmes A; Poline JB; Price CJ; Frith CD Neuroimage; 1996 Dec; 4(3 Pt 1):223-35. PubMed ID: 9345513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]