Selective correlations; not voodoo

The problem of "voodoo" correlations-exceptionally high observed correlations in selected regions of the brain-is well recognized in neuroimaging. It arises when quantities of interest are estimated from the same data that was used to select them as interesting. In statistical terminology, the problem of inference following selection from the same data is that of selective inference. Motivated by the unwelcome side-effects of splitting the data- the recommended remedy-we adapt the recent developments in selective inference in order to construct confidence intervals (CIs) with good reproducibility prospects, even if selection and estimation are done with the same data. These intervals control the expected proportion of non-covered correlations in the selected voxels-the False Coverage Rate (FCR). They extend further toward zero than standard intervals, thus attenuating the impression made by highly biased observed correlations. They do so adaptively, in that they coincide with the standard CIs when far away from the selection point. We complement existing analytic proofs with a simulation, showing that the proposed intervals control the FCR in realistic social neuroscience problems. We also suggest a "confidence calibration plot", to allow the intervals to be reported in a clear and interpretable way. Applying the proposed methodology on a loss-aversion study, we demonstrate that with the sample size and selection type employed, selection bias is considerable. Finally, selective intervals are compared to the currently recommended data-splitting approach. We discover that our approach has more power and typically more informative, as no data is discarded. Computation of the intervals is implemented in an accompanying software package.

[1]  D. Firth Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates , 1993 .

[2]  T. Yarkoni Big Correlations in Little Studies: Inflated fMRI Correlations Reflect Low Statistical Power—Commentary on Vul et al. (2009) , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[3]  Edward Vul,et al.  Reply to Comments on “Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition” , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  R. Gentleman,et al.  Independent filtering increases detection power for high-throughput experiments , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  A. Gelman,et al.  Correlations and Multiple Comparisons in Functional Imaging: A Statistical Perspective (Commentary on Vul et al., 2009) , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[6]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[7]  Sabrina M. Tom,et al.  The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk , 2007, Science.

[8]  John D. Storey,et al.  Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: a unified approach , 2004 .

[9]  L. Wasserman,et al.  Exceedance Control of the False Discovery Proportion , 2006 .

[10]  E. Lehmann Testing Statistical Hypotheses , 1960 .

[11]  K. Fiedler Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere—Not Only in Neuroscience , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[12]  Kate E Decleene,et al.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 2011 .

[13]  Edward E. Cureton,et al.  Validity, Reliability, and Baloney , 1950 .

[14]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Everything You Never Wanted to Know about Circular Analysis, but Were Afraid to Ask , 2010, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[15]  H. Pashler,et al.  Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition 1 , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  J. Mumford,et al.  Independence in ROI analysis: where is the voodoo? , 2009, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[17]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review , 2003, Statistical methods in medical research.

[18]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  False Discovery Rate–Adjusted Multiple Confidence Intervals for Selected Parameters , 2005 .

[19]  Amos Storkey,et al.  TractoR: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Tractography with R , 2011 .

[20]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[21]  Elliot T. Berkman,et al.  Correlations in Social Neuroscience Aren't Voodoo: Commentary on Vul et al. (2009) , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[22]  R. Fisher FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUES OF THE CORRELATION COEFFIENTS IN SAMPLES FROM AN INDEFINITELY LARGE POPU;ATION , 1915 .

[23]  Michel Dojat,et al.  Temporal and Spatial Independent Component Analysis for fMRI Data Sets Embedded in the AnalyzeFMRI R Package , 2011 .

[24]  P. Stark,et al.  Confidence Intervals with More Power to Determine the Sign: Two Ends Constrain the Means , 1998 .

[25]  Nicole A Lazar,et al.  Discussion of “Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition” by Vul et al. (2009) , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[26]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Commentary on Vul et al.'s (2009) “Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition” , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[27]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Selection Adjusted Confidence Intervals With More Power to Determine the Sign , 2013 .