Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

9.9K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
9.9K
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

10.8K
Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
10.8K
Sampling Methods: Sample Types01:18

Sampling Methods: Sample Types

3.1K
Sampling materials are classified into three main types: solid, liquid, and gas.
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...
3.1K
Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

Fundamental Attribution Error

13.7K
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is...
13.7K
Random Error01:04

Random Error

9.1K
Random or indeterminate errors originate from various uncontrollable variables, such as variations in environmental conditions, instrument imperfections, or the inherent variability of the phenomena being measured. Usually, these errors cannot be predicted, estimated, or characterized because their direction and magnitude often vary in magnitude and direction even during consecutive measurements. As a result, they are difficult to eliminate. However, the aggregate effect of these errors can be...
9.1K
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

7.1K
The margin of error is also called the maximum error of an estimate. The margin of error is the maximum possible or expected difference between the observed sample parameter value and the actual population parameter value. For proportion, it is the maximum difference between the value of sample proportion obtained from the data and the true value of population proportion. As the true value of the population parameter is not known, the margin of error is calculated using the sample statistic.
7.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Virtual immunohistochemistry by conditional generative adversarial networks.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

A Severity-Agnostic Atrophy Pattern in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3: Volumetrics from ENIGMA-Ataxia.

Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society·2026
Same author

A Portable and Dual-Button Microneedle Device Enables Intelligent Multimodal Laser Sensing.

Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)·2026
Same author

Meta-analysis and meta-regression of hearing loss fMRI activity, connectivity, and fluctuation alterations: Heterogeneity of auditory sensory impact across the lifespan.

NeuroImage·2026
Same author

Rhythmic skills mediate the link between music training and cognition via attention and phonological processing.

Communications psychology·2026
Same author

Functional connectivity alterations in spinocerebellar ataxia type 10: insights from gray matter atrophy.

Brain imaging and behavior·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 23, 2026

Stereotactically-guided Ablation of the Rat Auditory Cortex, and Localization of the Lesion in the Brain
09:29

Stereotactically-guided Ablation of the Rat Auditory Cortex, and Localization of the Lesion in the Brain

Published on: October 11, 2017

12.1K

Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex.

Francis A M Manno1,2,3, Juan Fernandez-Ruiz4, Sinai H C Manno2,3

  • 1Instituto de Neurobiología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Querétaro, Mexico.

Frontiers in Neuroscience
|June 20, 2019
PubMed
Summary

Sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) analysis reveals high false positive rates. Researchers recommend using a conservative alpha level (P < 0.001) for ssfMRI studies to ensure result validity.

Keywords:
auditory cortexfalse positivesnull hypothesissparse sampling fMRItype I error rates

More Related Videos

Functional Imaging of Auditory Cortex in Adult Cats using High-field fMRI
10:50

Functional Imaging of Auditory Cortex in Adult Cats using High-field fMRI

Published on: February 19, 2014

12.0K
Optogenetic Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve
10:53

Optogenetic Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve

Published on: October 8, 2014

15.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 23, 2026

Stereotactically-guided Ablation of the Rat Auditory Cortex, and Localization of the Lesion in the Brain
09:29

Stereotactically-guided Ablation of the Rat Auditory Cortex, and Localization of the Lesion in the Brain

Published on: October 11, 2017

12.1K
Functional Imaging of Auditory Cortex in Adult Cats using High-field fMRI
10:50

Functional Imaging of Auditory Cortex in Adult Cats using High-field fMRI

Published on: February 19, 2014

12.0K
Optogenetic Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve
10:53

Optogenetic Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve

Published on: October 8, 2014

15.1K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroimaging
  • Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)

Background:

  • Sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) enhances the primary auditory cortex blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal by interspersing silent periods, mitigating scanner noise artifacts.
  • Concerns exist regarding elevated type I error rates in resting-state fMRI due to hemodynamic response function (HRF) modeling techniques, potentially leading to unacceptable false positive findings.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate type I error rates in sparse sampling functional MRI (ssfMRI) across whole-brain and primary auditory cortex voxel-wise activation patterns.
  • To evaluate the impact of common ssfMRI analysis techniques on false positive rates.

Main Methods:

  • Participants (n=15) underwent ssfMRI scans.
  • An optimized paradigm determined the auditory stimuli HRF, which was then used with silent stimuli to assess false positives.
  • Voxel-wise analysis was performed on both whole-brain and primary auditory cortex data.

Main Results:

  • Common ssfMRI analysis techniques yield high type I error rates.
  • Similar error distributions were observed for whole-brain and primary auditory cortex analyses.
  • Type I error rates at P < 0.05, P < 0.01, and P < 0.001 were substantial, particularly for the auditory cortex (e.g., 9.02 ± 1.79% at P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

  • Standard ssfMRI analysis methods are associated with high false positive rates.
  • A conservative alpha level (e.g., P < 0.001) is recommended for ssfMRI analyses to enhance result reliability.
  • Findings highlight the need for careful statistical thresholding in ssfMRI research.