The expected behaviour of random fields in high dimensions: contradictions in the results of Bansal and Peterson []

Samuel Davenport; Thomas E Nichols

doi:10.1016/j.mri.2021.11.010

The expected behaviour of random fields in high dimensions: contradictions in the results of Bansal and Peterson []

Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 Jul:90:70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2021.11.010. Epub 2022 Feb 1.

Authors

Samuel Davenport¹, Thomas E Nichols²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3LB, UK. Electronic address: sdavenport@health.ucsd.edu.
² Oxford Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

Abstract

Bansal and Peterson (2018) found that in simple stationary Gaussian simulations Random Field Theory incorrectly estimates the number of clusters of a Gaussian field that lie above a threshold. Their results contradict the existing literature and appear to have arisen due to errors in their code. Using reproducible code we demonstrate that in their simulations Random Field Theory correctly predicts the expected number of clusters and therefore that many of their results are invalid.

Keywords: Multiple testing; Random field theory; Response; fMRI.

Publication types

Letter
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Normal Distribution*

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding