<story><title>Risk of false positives in fMRI of post-mortem Atlantic salmon (2010) [pdf]</title><url>https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7gb13j26v9f4dp/Bennett-Salmon-2010.pdf?dl=0</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>_qbxp</author><text>I was doing fMRI work around the time this paper was published. It astonished me that people would simply set an uncorrected voxel-level threshold and call it a day. No FWE-correction, no cluster-threshold - just an 0.001 uncorrected threshold. It was sad that this paper needed to be published to get researchers to start paying attention to that.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll be honest - when the paper was published I was thinking &amp;quot;no shit - why do we need a paper to tell us what we all learned in stats 101 about multiple comparisons??&amp;quot; And then realized the quantity of fMRI papers that used uncorrected thresholds.&lt;p&gt;Very similar feeling when the &amp;quot;Voodoo Correlations&amp;quot; paper came out. Except I was admittedly guilty of having presented correlation coefficients from clusters that had already been identified using thresholding. So that paper really did make me take a closer look at some of my figures&amp;#x2F;conclusions.</text></comment>
<story><title>Risk of false positives in fMRI of post-mortem Atlantic salmon (2010) [pdf]</title><url>https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7gb13j26v9f4dp/Bennett-Salmon-2010.pdf?dl=0</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>prefrontal</author><text>Hey all. I’m the author of the poster and subsequent paper.  Happy to answer any questions that you might have.&lt;p&gt;Glad to see this on Hacker News so many years after the poster first went up!</text></comment>