Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Schippers, Renken and Keysers (NeuroImage, 2011) present a simulation of multi-subject lag-based causality estimation. We fully agree that single-subject evaluations (e.g., Smith et al., 2011) need to be revisited in the context of multi-subject studies, and Schippers' paper is a good example, including detailed multi-level simulation and cross-subject statistical modelling. The authors conclude that "the average chance to find a significant Granger causality effect when no actual influence is present in the data stays well below the p-level imposed on the second level statistics" and that "when the analyses reveal a significant directed influence, this direction was accurate in the vast majority of the cases". Unfortunately, we believe that the general meaning that may be taken from these statements is not supported by the paper's results, as there may in reality be a systematic (group-average) difference in haemodynamic delay between two brain areas. While many statements in the paper (e.g., the final two sentences) do refer to this problem, we fear that the overriding message that many readers may take from the paper could cause misunderstanding.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.015

Type

Journal article

Journal

Neuroimage

Publication Date

16/01/2012

Volume

59

Pages

1228 - 1229

Keywords

Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Hemodynamics, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging