NeuroImageNeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
All-Resolutions Inference for Brain Imaging
Jonathan D. RosenblattiD, Livio FinosiD, Wouter D. WeedaiD, Aldo SolariiD, Jelle J. GoemaniD
Abstract
The most prevalent approach to activation localization in neuroimaging is to identify brain regions as contiguous supra-threshold clusters, check their significance using random field theory, and correct for the multiple clusters being tested. Besides recent criticism on the validity of the random field assumption, a spatial specificity paradox remains: the larger the detected cluster, the less we know about the location of activation within that cluster. This is because cluster inference implies \"there exists at least one voxel with an evoked response in the cluster\", and not that \"all the voxels in the cluster have an evoked response\". Inference on voxels within selected clusters is considered bad practice, due to the voxel-wise false positive rate inflation associated with this circular inference. Here, we propose a remedy to the spatial specificity paradox. By applying recent results from the multiple testing statistical literature, we are able to quantify the proportion of truly active voxels within selected clusters, an approach we call All-Resolutions Inference (ARI). If this proportion is high, the paradox vanishes. If it is low, we can further \"drill down\" from the cluster level to sub-regions, and even to individual voxels, in order to pinpoint the origin of the activation. In fact, ARI allows inference on the proportion of activation in all voxel sets, no matter how large or small, however these have been selected, all from the same data. We use two fMRI datasets to demonstrate the non-triviality of the spatial specificity paradox, and its resolution using ARI. One of these datasets is large enough for us to split it and validate the ARI estimates. The conservatism of ARI inference permits circularity without losing error guarantees, while still returning informative estimates.
- Citations
- 51
- FWCI
- 1.93
- Field percentile
- top 15%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Leveling up: improving power in fMRI by moving beyond cluster-level inference
Stephanie Noble, Amanda F. Mejia, … Dustin Scheinost·Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesPeer-reviewed·Aug 4, 2022
- Evaluating Approaches for Inference Testing of Whole-Brain Densely Sampled Single-Subject Task fMRI Data
Michelle C. Medina, Neha Reddy, … Kevin Richard Sitek·bioRxiv·Jun 30, 2026
- Spatial Confidence Sets for Standardized Effect Size Images
Alexander Bowring, Fabian J. E. Telschow, … Thomas E. Nichols·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Nov 6, 2020
- Spatial Confidence Sets for Raw Effect Size Images
Alexander Bowring, Fabian J. E. Telschow, … Thomas E. Nichols·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Sep 15, 2019
- CLEAN: Leveraging spatial autocorrelation in neuroimaging data in clusterwise inference
Jun Young Park, Mark Joseph A. Fiecas·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Apr 6, 2022
- Reliability-Based Voxel Selection
Leyla Tarhan, Talia Konkle·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Nov 14, 2019