Article

Conjunction revisited.

The Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience and Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, 17 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK.
NeuroImage (Impact Factor: 6.13). 04/2005; 25(3):661-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this note is to revisit the analysis of conjunctions in imaging data. We review some conceptual issues that have emerged from recent discussion (Nichols, T., Brett, M., Andersson, J., Wager, T., Poline, J.-B., 2004. Valid Conjunction Inference with the Minimum Statistic.) and reformulate the conjunction of null hypotheses as a conjunction of k or more effects. Analyses based on minimum statistics have typically used the null hypothesis that k = 0. This enables inferences about one or more effects (k > 0). However, this does not provide control over false-positive rates (FPR) for inferences about a conjunction of k = n effects, over n tests. This is the key point made by Nichols et al., who suggest a procedure based on supremum P values that provides an upper bound on FPR for k = n. Although valid, this is a very conservative procedure, particularly in the context of multiple comparisons. We suggest that an inference on a conjunction of k = n effects is generally unnecessary and distinguish between congruent contrasts that test for the same treatment and incongruent contrasts of the sort used in cognitive conjunctions. For congruent contrasts, the usual inference, k > 0, is sufficient. With incongruent contrasts it is sufficient to infer a conjunction of k >u effects, where u is the number of contrasts that share some uninteresting effect. The issues highlighted by Nichols et al., have important implications for the design and analysis of cognitive conjunction studies and have motivated a change to the SPM software, that affords a test for the more general hypothesis k >u. This more general conjunction test is described.

Full-text

Available from: Daniel E Glaser, Jun 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Expectations shape the way we experience the world. In this study, we used fMRI to investigate how positive and negative expectation can changes pain experiences in the same cohort of subjects. We first manipulated subjects' treatment expectation of the effectiveness of three inert creams, with one cream labeled "Lidocaine" (positive expectancy), one labeled "Capsaicin" (negative expectancy) and one labeled "Neutral" by surreptitiously decreasing, increasing, or not changing respectively, the intensity of the noxious stimuli administered following cream application. We then used fMRI to investigate the signal changes associated with administration of identical pain stimuli before and after the treatment and control creams. Twenty-four healthy adults completed the study. Results showed expectancy significantly modulated subjective pain ratings. After controlling for changes in the neutral condition, the subjective pain rating changes evoked by positive and negative expectancy were significantly associated. fMRI results showed that the expectation of an increase in pain induced significant fMRI signal changes in the insula, orbitofrontal cortex, and periaqueductal gray, whereas the expectation of pain relief evoked significant fMRI signal changes in the striatum. No brain regions were identified as common to both "Capsaicin" and "Lidocaine" conditioning. There was also no significant association between the brain response to identical noxious stimuli in the pain matrix evoked by positive and negative expectancy. Our findings suggest that positive and negative expectancy engage different brain networks to modulate our pain experiences, but, overall, these distinct patterns of neural activation result in a correlated placebo and nocebo behavioral response. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    NeuroImage 03/2015; 112. DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.015 · 6.13 Impact Factor