guest ::
| Home > Publications database > Consistent activation differences versus differences in consistent activation: Evaluating meta-analytic contrasts |
| Home > Publications database > Consistent activation differences versus differences in consistent activation: Evaluating meta-analytic contrasts |
| Journal Article | FZJ-2024-05930 |
; ; ; ; ; ;
2024
MIT Press
Cambridge, MA
This record in other databases:
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1162/imag_a_00358 doi:10.34734/FZJ-2024-05930
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.
; 
; 
; 
; DOAJ Seal
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF