<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.2 20190208//EN"
                  "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.2" article-type="other">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id></journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Journal for Reproducibility in
Neuroscience</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn publication-format="electronic">2670-3815</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Publishers of Trial and Error</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<title-group>
<article-title>Five best practices for fMRI research: Towards a
biologically grounded understanding of mental phenomena</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-5784-7769</contrib-id>
<name>
<surname>Mills-Finnerty</surname>
<given-names>Colleen</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-0"/>
</contrib>
<aff id="aff-0">
<institution-wrap>
<institution>Department of Psychiatry &amp; Behavioral Science, Stanford
University Veterans Administration Palo Alto</institution>
</institution-wrap>
</aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
<day>24</day>
<month>03</month>
<year>2021</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>2</volume>
<elocation-id>best-practices-fmri</elocation-id>
<permissions>
<license license-type="CC-BY-SA" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">
<license-p>Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://jrn.trialanderror.org/pub/best-practices-fmri">This pub is available from https://jrn.trialanderror.org/pub/best-practices-fmri</self-uri>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="abstract">
  <title><bold>Abstract</bold></title>
  <p>The replication crisis in science has not spared functional
  magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research. A range of issues
  including insufficient control of false positives, code bugs, concern
  regarding generalizability and replicability of findings, inadequate
  characterization of physiological confounds, over-mining of repository
  datasets, and the small sample sizes/low power of many early studies
  have led to hearty debate in both the field and the press about the
  usefulness and viability of fMRI. Others still see enormous potential
  for fMRI in diagnosing conditions that do not otherwise lend
  themselves to non-invasive biological measurement, from chronic pain
  to neurological and psychiatric illness. How do we reconcile the
  limitations of fMRI with the hype over its potential? Despite many
  papers hailed by the press as the nail in the coffin for fMRI, from
  the dead salmon incident of 2009 to cluster failure more recently,
  funders, researchers, and the general public do not seem to have
  reduced their appetite for pictures of brain maps, or gadgets with the
  word “neuro” in the name. Multiple blogs exist for the sole purpose of
  criticizing such enterprise. The replicability crisis should certainly
  give ‘neuroimagers’ pause, and reason to soul-search. It is more
  important than ever to clarify when fMRI is and when it is not useful.
  The method remains the best noninvasive imaging tool for many research
  questions, however imperfect and imprecise it may be. However, to
  address past limitations, I argue neuroimaging researchers planning
  future studies need to consider the following five factors:
  power/effect size, design optimization, replicability, physiological
  confounds, and data sharing.</p>
  <p><bold>Keywords: </bold><italic>fMRI, open science</italic></p>
  <graphic id="n993jg7l7lk" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="png" xlink:href="https://assets.pubpub.org/sv89p5p8/image-21691157993909.png" />
  <p></p>
  <p></p>
  <graphic id="nrbree3j3bo" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="png" xlink:href="https://assets.pubpub.org/pzrlppew/image-71691160815460.png" />
</sec>
<sec id="references">
  <title><bold>References</bold></title>
  <p>Woo CW, Krishnan A, Wager TD. Cluster-extent based thresholding in
  fMRIanalyses: pitfalls and recommendations. Neuroimage. 2014
  May;91:412-19. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.058</p>
  <p>Eklund A, Nichols TE, Knutsson H. Cluster failure: Why fMRI
  inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc
  Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016 Jul;113(28):7900-05. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602413113</p>
  <p>Cox RW, Chen G, Glen DR, Reynolds RC, Taylor PA. fMRI clustering in
  AFNI: false-positive rates redux. Brain Connect. 2017 Apr;7(3):152-71.
  Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2016.0475</p>
  <p>Drysdale AT, Grosenick L, Downar J, Dunlop K, Mansouri F, Meng Y,
  et al. Resting-state connectivity biomarkers define neurophysiological
  subtypes of depression. Nat Med. 2016 Dec;23(1):28-38. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4246</p>
  <p>Dinga R, Schmaal L, Penninx BWJH, van Tol MJ, Veltman DJ, van
  Velzen L, et al. Evaluating the evidence for biotypes of depression:
  methodological replication and extension of Drysdale et al. Neuroimage
  Clin. 2019;22:101796. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101796</p>
  <p>Dinga R, Schmaal L, Marquand AF. A closer look at depression
  biotypes: correspondence relating to Grosenick et al. (2019). Biol
  Psychiatry: Cog Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020 May;5:554-5. Available
  from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.09.011</p>
  <p>Grosenick L, Liston C. Reply to: a closer look at depression
  biotypes: correspondence relating to Grosenick et al. (2019). Biol
  Psychiatry: Cog Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020;5(5):556. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.11.002</p>
  <p>Tsvetanov KA, Henson RNA, Rowe JB. Separating vascular and neuronal
  effects of age on fMRI BOLD signals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol
  Sci . 2020 Nov;376:20190613. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0631</p>
  <p>Özbay PS, Chang C, Picchioni D, Mandelkow H, Moehlman TM,
  Chappel-Farley MG, et al. Contribution of systemic vascular effects to
  fMRI activity in white matter. Neuroimage. 2018 Aug;176:541-9.
  Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.045</p>
  <p>Thompson WH, Wright J, Bissett PG, Poldrack RA. Dataset decay and
  the problem of sequential analyses on open datasets. ELife. 2020
  May;9:e53498. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53498</p>
  <p>Stockton N. 2017 June. Don't be so quick to flush 15 years of brain
  scan studies. Iowa USA: Wired; 2016 Jul 8. Available from:
  https://www.wired.com/2016/07/dont-quick-flush-15-years-brain-scan-studies/</p>
  <p>Morris E. Why we need guidelines for brain scan data. Iowa USA:
  Wired; 2019 Sept 17. Available from:
  https://www.wired.com/story/why-we-need-brain-scan-d
  ata-guidelines/</p>
  <p>D’Esposito M. 2019. Are individual differences in human brain
  organization measured with functional MRI meaningful? Proc Natl Acad
  Sci USA. 2019 Nov;116(45):22432-4. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915982116</p>
  <p>Bennett CM, Miller MB, Wolford GL. Neural correlates of
  interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem atlantic salmon: an
  argument for multiple comparisons correction. Neuroimage. 2009 J
  ul;47(1):S125.</p>
  <p>Cremers HR, Wager TD, Yarkoni T. 2017. The relation between
  statistical power and inference in fMRI. PLoS One. 2017
  Nov;12(11):e0184923. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184923</p>
  <p>Mills-Finnerty C, Hanson C, Khadr M, Hanson S.J. Computations and
  connectivity underlying aversive counterfactuals. Brain Connect. 2020
  Nov;10(9):467-78. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2020.0766</p>
  <p>Miyakawa T. No raw data, no science: another possible source of the
  reproducibility crisis. Mol Brain. 2020 Feb;13:24. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2</p>
  <p>Chambers C. What’s next for registered reports? Nature.
  Sept;573:187-9. Available from: https://doi.org/
  10.1038/d41586-019-02674-6</p>
  <p>Yarkoni T, Poldrack R, Nichols T, Van Essen D, Wager T. NeuroSynth:
  a new platform for large-scale automated synthesis of human functional
  neuroimaging data. Front Neuroinform Conference Abstract: 4th INCF
  Congress of Neuroinformatics. 2011 Sept. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fninf.2011.08.00058</p>
  <p>Bowring A, Maumet C, Nichols TE. Erratum: exploring the impact of
  analysis software on task fMRI results. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020
  Dec;42(5):1564-78. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25302</p>
  <p>Murphy K, Birn RM, Bandettini PA. 2013. Resting-state fMRI
  confounds and cleanup. Neuroimage. 2013 Oct;80:349-59. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.001</p>
  <p>Park HD, Barnoud C, Trang H, Kannape OA, Schaller K, Blanke O.
  2020. Breathing is coupled with voluntary action and the cortical
  readiness potential. Nat Commun. Feb;11:289. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13967-9</p>
  <p>Mills-Finnerty C. Barriers to reproducibility: misalignment of
  career incentives and open science best practices. J Rep Neurosci .
  2020 Aug;10. Available from:
  https://doi.org/10.31885/jrn.1.2020.304</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
</back>
</article>