![]() ![]() The work by Eklund and colleagues showed that the false positive rate using some analysis techniques can be as high as 70 percent, which is the origin of that figure in the headlines. we are still determining the best way to control false positives. ![]() Since the field of fMRI research is relatively new - barely above the legal drinking age in the U.S. ![]() Assessing the risk of false positives is not a new issue and is central in most scientific fields. For those of you interested in a more detailed technical explanation, see the blog we wrote for our community. Controlling false positives, however, can be a tricky business since it often requires certain assumptions to be made. Researchers use methods that control the chance of a false positive within their measurements, capped at a predetermined level (usually 5 percent). Since the detection is made via statistical techniques, there is always a chance that what is determined to be an activation, may in fact be a "false positive". Where did these numbers come from? Well, a major issue that all brain imagers must deal with is determining the reliability of the detected brain activation. You may have read some of these reports, which often repeated convincing figures like " false positive rates up to 70 percent" or " Tens of Thousands of FMRI Brain Studies May Be Flawed" to create doubt and undermine confidence in fMRI.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |