A Critique of a New Analysis Proposed for Functional Neuroimaging

Authors

  • R. S. J. Frackowiak,

    Corresponding author
    1. Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG and the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology, University College London, London, UK.
      R. S. J Frackowiak as above
    Search for more papers by this author
  • S. Zeki,

    1. Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG and the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology, University College London, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • J.-B. Poline,

    1. Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG and the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology, University College London, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • K. J. Friston

    1. Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG and the Wellcome Laboratory of Neurobiology, University College London, London, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author

R. S. J Frackowiak as above

Abstract

Methods for analysing functional imaging data have evolved rapidly over the last ten years. Standardized techniques based on formal mathematical and statistical theory and rigorous empirical validation have been proposed to facilitate comparisons of biological results between laboratories. This paper examines an image analysis technique that appears to identify unexpectedly large numbers of activated brain areas for the data collected. It concludes that the method may not adequately control for false positives, rendering interpretation of the functional anatomy difficult.

Ancillary