Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36756003›Full record

ArticleNeurophotonics2023

Revealing the spatiotemporal requirements for accurate subject identification with resting-state functional connectivity: a simultaneous fNIRS-fMRI study.

Sergio L Novi, Alex C Carvalho, R M Forti, Fernado Cendes, Clarissa L Yasuda, Rickson C Mesquita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurophotonics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. From lab to life: challenges and perspectives of fNIRS for haemodynamic-based neurofeedback in real-world environments.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sergio L NoviUniversity of Campinas, "Gleb Wataghin" Institute of Physics, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1035-4852
Alex C CarvalhoUniversity of Campinas, "Gleb Wataghin" Institute of Physics, Campinas, Brazil.
R M FortiUniversity of Campinas, "Gleb Wataghin" Institute of Physics, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8978-2525
Fernado CendesBrazilian Institute of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, Campinas, Brazil.
Clarissa L YasudaUniversity of Campinas, Laboratory of Neuroimaging, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9084-7173
Rickson C MesquitaUniversity of Campinas, "Gleb Wataghin" Institute of Physics, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1945-6713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significance: Brain fingerprinting refers to identifying participants based on their functional patterns. Despite its success with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), brain fingerprinting with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) still lacks adequate validation. Aim: We investigated how fNIRS-specific acquisition features (limited spatial information and nonneural contributions) influence resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) patterns at the intra-subject level and, therefore, brain fingerprinting. Approach: We performed multiple simultaneous fNIRS and fMRI measurements in 29 healthy participants at rest. Data were preprocessed following the best practices, including the removal of motion artifacts and global physiology. The rsFC maps were extracted with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Brain fingerprinting was tested with pairwise metrics and a simple linear classifier. Results: Our results show that average classification accuracy with fNIRS ranges from 75% to 98%, depending on the number of runs and brain regions used for classification. Under the right conditions, brain fingerprinting with fNIRS is close to the 99.9% accuracy found with fMRI. Overall, the classification accuracy is more impacted by the number of runs and the spatial coverage than the choice of the classification algorithm. Conclusions: This work provides evidence that brain fingerprinting with fNIRS is robust and reliable for extracting unique individual features at the intra-subject level once relevant spatiotemporal constraints are correctly employed.

Indexed as

brain fingerprintingfunctional magnetic resonance imagingfunctional near-infrared spectroscopyresting-state functional connectivitysubject identification

Identifiers

PMID36756003
PMCPMC9896013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.