Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37229429›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Demographic reporting and phenotypic exclusion in fNIRS.

Jasmine Kwasa, Hannah M Peterson, Kavon Karrobi, Lietsel Jones, Termara Parker, Nia Nickerson, Sossena Wood

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Expanding the toolkit: OPMs for studying the developing brain.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jasmine KwasaNeuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Hannah M PetersonCenter for Systems Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Kavon KarrobiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Lietsel JonesBurnett School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.
Termara ParkerInterdepartmental Neuroscience Program, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Nia NickersonCombined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Sossena WoodNeuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Carnegie Mellon University · USBoston University · USCenter for Systems Biology · USUniversity of Central Florida · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USYale University · US

Funding

Developing Novel Neural Technologies to Investigate Top-Down Attention in Neurologically and Racially Heterogeneous PopulationsK00NS115331 · NINDS · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI Jasmine Kwasa · 2022 to 2026
$329k
NINDS NIH HHS K00 NS115331
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) promises to be a leading non-invasive neuroimaging method due to its portability and low cost. However, concerns are rising over its inclusivity of all skin tones and hair types (Parker and Ricard, 2022, Webb et al., 2022). Functional NIRS relies on direct contact of light-emitting optodes to the scalp, which can be blocked more by longer, darker, and especially curlier hair. Additionally, NIR light can be attenuated by melanin, which is accounted for in neither fNIRS hardware nor analysis methods. Recent work has shown that overlooking these considerations in other modalities like EEG leads to the disproportionate exclusion of individuals with these phenotypes-especially Black people-in both clinical and research literature (Choy, 2020; Bradford et al., 2022; Louis et al., 2023). In this article, we sought to determine if (Jöbsis, 1977) biomedical optics developers and researchers report fNIRS performance variability between skin tones and hair textures, (2a) fNIRS neuroscience practitioners report phenotypic and demographic details in their articles, and thus, (2b) is a similar pattern of participant exclusion found in EEG also present in the fNIRS literature. We present a literature review of top Biomedical Optics and Human Neuroscience journals, showing that demographic and phenotypic reporting is unpopular in both fNIRS development and neuroscience applications. We conclude with a list of recommendations to the fNIRS community including examples of Black researchers addressing these issues head-on, inclusive best practices for fNIRS researchers, and recommendations to funding and regulatory bodies to achieve an inclusive neuroscience enterprise in fNIRS and beyond.

Indexed as

biomedical opticsfNIRS (functional near-infrared spectroscopy)inclusionmelaninneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID37229429
PMCPMC10203458
OpenAlexW4378347318

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.