The paper has been rebutted by other researchers who argue that the original results hold:
"This technical report revisits the analysis of family-wise error rates in statistical parametric mapping - using random field theory - reported in (Eklund et al., 2015). Contrary to the understandable spin that these sorts of analyses attract, a review of their results suggests that they endorse the use of parametric assumptions - and random field theory - in the analysis of functional neuroimaging data. We briefly rehearse the advantages parametric analyses offer over nonparametric alternatives and then unpack the implications of (Eklund et al., 2015) for parametric procedures."
Sort of. The rebuttal (by Flandin and Friston) suggests that properly-applied parametric statistics of the kind they favor are valid. Eklund et al. wouldn't disagree with that because their own findings support it, but they would point out that not all researchers necessarily adhered to the conservative statistical approach that F&F discuss. More specifically, both sets of authors describe the importance of using a conservative "cluster defining threshold" to identify spatially contiguous 3D blobs of brain activation. Eklund et al. use their findings to raise the question of whether the bulk of fMRI reports were conservative in this regard.
