Behavior, Sensitivity, and power of activation likelihood estimation characterized by massive empirical simulation

By Simon B. Eickhoff, Thomas E. Nichols, Angela R. Laird, Felix Hoffstaedter, Katrin Amunts, Peter T. Fox, Danilo Bzdok, Claudia R. Eickhoff. NeuroImage, 2016

669 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Given the increasing number of neuroimaging publications, the automated knowledge extraction on brain-behavior associations by quantitative meta-analyses has become a highly important and rapidly growing field of research. Among several methods to perform coordinate-based neuroimaging meta-analyses, Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) has been widely adopted. In this paper, we addressed two pressing questions related to ALE meta-analysis: i) Which thresholding method is most appropriate to perform statistical inference? ii) Which sample size, i.e., number of experiments, is needed to perform robust meta-analyses? We provided quantitative answers to these questions by simulating more than 120,000 meta-analysis datasets using empirical parameters (i.e., number of subjects, number of reported foci, distribution of activation foci) derived from the BrainMap database. This allowed to characterize the behavior of ALE analyses, to derive first power estimates for neuroimaging meta-analyses, and to thus formulate recommendations for future ALE studies. We could show as a first consequence that cluster-level family-wise error (FWE) correction represents the most appropriate method for statistical inference, while voxel-level FWE correction is valid but more conservative. In contrast, uncorrected inference and false-discovery rate correction should be avoided. As a second consequence, researchers should aim to include at least 20 experiments into an ALE meta-analysis to achieve sufficient power for moderate effects. We would like to note, though, that these calculations and recommendations are specific to ALE and may not be extrapolated to other approaches for (neuroimaging) meta-analysis.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16ca194125b4a12352fd3a2b6e9ac3bac812f837

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Chaogan Yan
2. F. X. Castellanos
3. Yang-Qian Shen
4. Zhi-Chen Zhu
5. Le Li
6. Xiao Chen
7. Hui Zhou
8. Ning-Xuan Chen

Citations in the corpus

• Rumination and the default mode network: Meta-analysis of brain imaging studies and implications for depression (2020, background): “Moreover, the limited number of typical rumination/distraction studies provides equivocal statistical power for meta-analysis (Eickhoff et al., 2016).”