An Appropriate Use of I Map Produces Correct Statistical Results: A Reply to McManus (2013) “ I Map and I Map2 Produce Erroneous Statistical Maps of Eye-Movement Differences”
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2014
An Appropriate Use of I Map Produces Correct Statistical Results: A Reply to McManus (2013) “ I Map and I Map2 Produce Erroneous Statistical Maps of Eye-Movement Differences”
McManus (2013, Perception, 42, 1075–1084) contends the validity of the statistical approach adopted in previous versions of iMap (namely, iMap and iMap2; Caldara & Miellet, 2011, Behavior Research Methods, 43, 864–878), casts doubts on earlier results obtained with the toolbox, and offers an altered version of the code. Here we dispute these claims and argue that while some of the arguments put forward are valid, McManus's conclusions are misleading, since they are based on a partial use of the toolbox. Moreover, we compared iMap with the alternative code offered by McManus and objectively demonstrate that McManus's approach is underpowered and flawed. iMap offers an appropriate and effective alternative to the commonly used regions of interest approach for statistical analyses of eye-movement data.
AdlerR. J. (1981). The geometry of random fields. New York: Wiley.
2.
BlaisC.JackR. E.ScheepersC.FisetD.CaldaraR. (2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS ONE, 3:e3022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009708.
3.
CaldaraR.MielletS. (2011). iMap: A novel method for statistical fixation mapping of eye movement data. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 864–878.
4.
CaldaraR.ZhouX.MielletS. (2010). Putting culture under the ‘spotlight’ reveals universal information use for face recognition. PLoS ONE5(3):e9708. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009708.
5.
ChauvinA.WorsleyK. J.SchynsP. G.ArguinM.GosselinF. (2005). Accurate statistical tests for smooth classification images. Journal of Vision, 5(9):1, 659–667.
6.
DelormeA.MakeigS. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9–21.
7.
FristonK. J.WorsleyK. J.FrackowiakR. S. J.MazziottaJ. C.EvansA. C. (1994). Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent. Human Brain Mapping, 1, 214–220.
KellyD. J.LiuS.RodgerH.MielletS.GeL.CaldaraR. (2011). Developing cultural differences in face processing. Developmental Science, 14, 1176–1184.
10.
KellyD. J.MielletS.CaldaraR. (2010). Culture shapes eye movements for visually homogeneous objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00006.
11.
KitaY.GunjiA.SakiharaK.InagakiM.KagaM.NakagawaE.HosokawaT. (2010). Scanning strategies do not modulate face identification: Eye-tracking and near-infrared spectroscopy study. PLoS ONE, 5:e11050. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011050.
12.
KriegeskorteN.SimmonsW. K.BellgowanP. S. F.BakerC. I. (2009). Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 535–540.
13.
LiuS.QuinnP. C.WheelerA.XiaoN.GeL.LeeK. (2011). Similarity and difference in the processing of same- and other-race faces as revealed by eye tracking in 4- to 9-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 180–189. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.008.
14.
McManusI. C. (2013). iMAP and iMAP2 produce erroneous statistical maps of eye-movement differences. Perception, 42, 1075–1084. doi:10.1068/p7520.
15.
MielletS.CaldaraR.RajuM.GillbergC.MinnisH. (2014). Disinhibited reactive attachment disorder symptoms impair social judgements from faces. Psychiatry Research, 215, 747–752. doi:org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.004.
16.
MielletS.CaldaraR.SchynsP. G. (2011). Local Jekyll and global Hyde: The dual identity of face identification. Psychological Science, 22, 1518–1526. doi:10.1177/0956797611424290.
17.
MielletS.HeL.ZhouX.LaoJ.CaldaraR. (2012). When East meets West: Gaze-contingent blindspots abolish cultural diversity in eye movements for faces. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5(2):4, 1–12.
18.
MielletS.VizioliL.HeL.ZhouX.CaldaraR. (2013). Mapping face recognition information use across cultures. Frontiers in Psychology4:34. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00034.
19.
MielletS.ZhouX.HeL.RodgerH.CaldaraR. (2010). Investigating cultural diversity for extrafoveal information use in scenes. Journal of Vision10(6):21, 1–18. doi:10.1167/10.6.21.
20.
OostenveldR.FriesP.MarisE.SchoffelenJ.-M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, article 156869. doi:10.1155/2011/156869.
21.
PernetC. R.ChauveauN.GasparC. M.RousseletG. G. (2011). LIMO EEG: A toolbox for hierarchical linear modeling of electroencephalographic data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, article 831409. doi:10.1155/2011/831409.
22.
SmithS. M.NicholsT. E. (2009). Threshold-free cluster enhancement: Addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference. NeuroImage, 44, 83–98. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061.
23.
WatanabeK.MatsudaT.NishiokaT.NamatameM. (2011). Eye gaze during observation of static faces in deaf people. PLoS ONE6(2):e16919. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016919.
