% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kppers:1032015,
author = {Küppers, Vincent and Cieslik, Edna and Frahm, Lennart and
Hoffstaedter, Felix and Eickhoff, Simon and Langner, Robert
and Müller, Veronika},
title = {{C}onsistent activation differences versus differences in
consistent activation: {E}valuating meta-analytic contrasts},
journal = {Imaging neuroscience},
volume = {2},
issn = {2837-6056},
address = {Cambridge, MA},
publisher = {MIT Press},
reportid = {FZJ-2024-05930},
pages = {1-16},
year = {2024},
abstract = {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.},
cin = {INM-7},
ddc = {050},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
pnm = {5251 - Multilevel Brain Organization and Variability
(POF4-525)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5251},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {40800475},
UT = {WOS:001530597300003},
doi = {10.1162/imag_a_00358},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1032015},
}