Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36922983›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2023

Interdisciplinary views of fNIRS: Current advancements, equity challenges, and an agenda for future needs of a diverse fNIRS research community.

Emily J Doherty, Cara A Spencer, Jeremy Burnison, Marta Čeko, Jenna Chin, Lucca Eloy, Kerstin Haring, Pilyoung Kim, Daniel Pittman, Shannon Powers and 5 more

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Schizophrenia Research: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily J DohertyDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Cara A SpencerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Jeremy BurnisonNIRx Medizintechnik GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Marta ČekoInstitute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Jenna ChinCollege of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Lucca EloyDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Kerstin HaringDepartment of Computer Science, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Pilyoung KimCollege of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Daniel PittmanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Shannon PowersCollege of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Samuel L PughDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Demetris RoumisNIRx Medizintechnik GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Jaclyn A StephensDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Tom YehDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
Leanne HirshfieldDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States.
University of Colorado Boulder · USUniversity of Denver · USDiamed Medizintechnik (Germany) · DEColorado State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) is an innovative and promising neuroimaging modality for studying brain activity in real-world environments. While fNIRS has seen rapid advancements in hardware, software, and research applications since its emergence nearly 30 years ago, limitations still exist regarding all three areas, where existing practices contribute to greater bias within the neuroscience research community. We spotlight fNIRS through the lens of different end-application users, including the unique perspective of a fNIRS manufacturer, and report the challenges of using this technology across several research disciplines and populations. Through the review of different research domains where fNIRS is utilized, we identify and address the presence of bias, specifically due to the restraints of current fNIRS technology, limited diversity among sample populations, and the societal prejudice that infiltrates today's research. Finally, we provide resources for minimizing bias in neuroscience research and an application agenda for the future use of fNIRS that is equitable, diverse, and inclusive.

Indexed as

biascollaborationdiversityfNIRShuman-computer interaction

Identifiers

PMID36922983
PMCPMC10010439
OpenAlexW4322504174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read5
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.