%0 Journal Article
%A Küppers, Vincent
%A Cieslik, Edna
%A Frahm, Lennart
%A Hoffstaedter, Felix
%A Eickhoff, Simon
%A Langner, Robert
%A Müller, Veronika
%T Consistent activation differences versus differences in consistent activation: Evaluating meta-analytic contrasts
%J Imaging neuroscience
%V 2
%@ 2837-6056
%C Cambridge, MA
%I MIT Press
%M FZJ-2024-05930
%P 1-16
%D 2024
%X Meta-analytic contrasts are a promising aspect of coordinate-based meta-analyses in neuroimaging research as they facilitate the statistical comparison of two meta-analytic results. They have been used for a multitude of comparisons, such as task conditions, cognitive processes, and groups. However, it remains to be tested how the results of meta-analytic contrasts relate to those of classic meta-analyses and vice versa. Here we present a comprehensive empirical investigation of this issue using four datasets from three different cognitive domains: working memory, working memory load, cognitive interference processing, and emotional face processing. For all four datasets, we compared the results of a standard meta-analysis across prototypical contrasts (condition A > condition B) reported in individual experiments with those of a contrast between two individual meta-analyses of the same conditions (meta-analysis condition A > meta-analysis condition B). In the meta-analytic contrasts similar brain regions as in the standard meta-analysis were found but with relatively distinct spatial activation patterns. Additionally, fewer regions were revealed in the meta-analytic contrasts, especially in areas where the conditions spatially overlapped. This can be ascribed to the loss of information on the strength of activations in meta-analytic contrasts, across which standard meta-analysis summarize. In one dataset, additional regions were found in the meta-analytic contrast, potentially due to task effects. Our results demonstrate that meta-analytic contrasts can yield similar results to standard meta-analyses but are sparser. This confirms the overall validity, but also limited ability to capture all regions found in standard meta-analyses. Notable differences observed in some cases indicate that such contrasts cannot be taken as an easy substitute for classic meta-analyses of experiment-level contrasts, warranting further research into the boundary conditions for agreement.
%F PUB:(DE-HGF)16
%9 Journal Article
%$ 40800475
%U <Go to ISI:>//WOS:001530597300003
%R 10.1162/imag_a_00358
%U https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1032015