  Recent reports of inflated false positive rates (FPRs) in FMRI group analysis
tools by Eklund et al. (2016) have become a large topic within (and outside)
neuroimaging. They concluded that: existing parametric methods for determining
statistically significant clusters had greatly inflated FPRs ("up to 70%,"
mainly due to the faulty assumption that the noise spatial autocorrelation
function is Gaussian- shaped and stationary), calling into question potentially
"countless" previous results; in contrast, nonparametric methods, such as their
approach, accurately reflected nominal 5% FPRs. They also stated that AFNI
showed "particularly high" FPRs compared to other software, largely due to a
bug in 3dClustSim. We comment on these points using their own results and
figures and by repeating some of their simulations. Briefly, while parametric
methods show some FPR inflation in those tests (and assumptions of
Gaussian-shaped spatial smoothness also appear to be generally incorrect),
their emphasis on reporting the single worst result from thousands of
simulation cases greatly exaggerated the scale of the problem. Importantly, FPR
statistics depend on "task" paradigm and voxelwise p-value threshold; as such,
we show how results of their study provide useful suggestions for FMRI study
design and analysis, rather than simply a catastrophic downgrading of the
field's earlier results. Regarding AFNI (which we maintain), 3dClustSim's
bug-effect was greatly overstated - their own results show that AFNI results
were not "particularly" worse than others. We describe further updates in AFNI
for characterizing spatial smoothness more appropriately (greatly reducing
FPRs, though some remain >5%); additionally, we outline two newly implemented
permutation/randomization-based approaches producing FPRs clustered much more
tightly about 5% for voxelwise p<=0.01.
