IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0115700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Antidote to the Imager's Fallacy, or How to Identify Brain Areas That Are in Limbo

Author

Listed:
  • Gilles de Hollander
  • Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
  • Lourens Waldorp
  • Birte Forstmann

Abstract

Traditionally, fMRI data are analyzed using statistical parametric mapping approaches. Regardless of the precise thresholding procedure, these approaches ultimately divide the brain in regions that do or do not differ significantly across experimental conditions. This binary classification scheme fosters the so-called imager's fallacy, where researchers prematurely conclude that region A is selectively involved in a certain cognitive task because activity in that region reaches statistical significance and activity in region B does not. For such a conclusion to be statistically valid, however, a test on the differences in activation across these two regions is required. Here we propose a simple GLM-based method that defines an “in-between” category of brain regions that are neither significantly active nor inactive, but rather “in limbo”. For regions that are in limbo, the activation pattern is inconclusive: it does not differ significantly from baseline, but neither does it differ significantly from regions that do show significant changes from baseline. This pattern indicates that measurement was insufficiently precise. By directly testing differences in activation, our procedure helps reduce the impact of the imager's fallacy. The method is illustrated using concrete examples.

Suggested Citation

  • Gilles de Hollander & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers & Lourens Waldorp & Birte Forstmann, 2014. "An Antidote to the Imager's Fallacy, or How to Identify Brain Areas That Are in Limbo," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115700
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115700
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115700&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0115700?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0115700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.