Dr. Carter et al. are entitled to defend their hypothesis, but I would argue that other investigators, adopting the more stringent threshold (p<0.001), might have reported such findings as negative (or perhaps as a trend). This point may have been addressed by peer review and might have been acknowledged in the discussion. As Brodie noted in the Journal, there is "an extraordinary peer review responsibility…unevenly assumed in the publication of functional imaging papers" (3, p. 145).