Power, positive predictive value, and sample size calculations for random field theory-based fMRI inference
Ostwald, D.; Schneider, S.; Bruckner, R.; Horvath, L.
Show abstract
Recent discussions on the reproducibility of task-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have emphasized the importance of power and sample size calculations in fMRI study planning. In general, statistical power and sample size calculations are dependent on the statistical inference framework that is used to test hypotheses. Bibliometric analyses suggest that random field theory (RFT)-based voxel- and cluster-level fMRI inference are the most commonly used approaches for the statistical evaluation of task-related fMRI data. However, general power and sample size calculations for these inference approaches remain elusive. Based on the mathematical theory of RFT-based inference, we here develop power and positive predictive value (PPV) functions for voxel- and cluster-level inference in both uncorrected single test and corrected multiple testing scenarios. Moreover, we apply the theoretical results to evaluate the sample size necessary to achieve desired power and PPV levels based on an fMRI pilot study.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Inverse Transformed Encoding Models - a solution to the problem of correlated trial-by-trial parameter estimates in fMRI decoding 97%
- To pool or not to pool: Can we ignore cross-trial variability in FMRI? 97%
- Fighting or Embracing Multiplicity in Neuroimaging? Neighborhood Leverage versus Global Calibration 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Simultaneous Confidence Regions for Image Excursion Sets: a Validation Study with Applications in fMRI 96%
- Mapping individual differences in intermodal coupling in neurodevelopment 96%
- Spectral graph model for fMRI: a biophysical, connectivity-based generative model for the analysis of frequency-resolved resting state fMRI 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.