ArticleNeurophotonics2024
Disentangling the impact of motion artifact correction algorithms on functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based brain network analysis.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain network characteristics and behavioral correlations in global developmental delay based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy.iScience · 2026Article
- Altered activation patterns of sensorimotor cortex during level walking and stair climbing in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Differences in sensory-motor cortex activation patterns during level and stair walking in patients with knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Prefrontal Hemodynamics Underlie the Synergistic Effect of Tai Chi Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Memory in Patients with MCI: An Exploratory fNIRS Study.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has been widely used to assess brain functional networks due to its superior ecological validity. Generally, fNIRS signals are sensitive to motion artifacts (MA), which can be removed by various MA correction algorithms. Yet, fNIRS signals may also undergo varying degrees of distortion due to MA correction, leading to notable alternation in functional connectivity (FC) analysis results. Aim: We aimed to investigate the effect of different MA correction algorithms on the performance of brain FC and topology analyses. Approach: We evaluated various MA correction algorithms on simulated and experimental datasets, including principal component analysis, spline interpolation, correlation-based signal improvement, Kalman filtering, wavelet filtering, and temporal derivative distribution repair (TDDR). The mean FC of each pre-defined network, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and graph theory metrics were investigated to assess the performance of different algorithms. Results: Although most algorithms did not differ significantly from each other, the TDDR and wavelet filtering turned out to be the most effective methods for FC and topological analysis, as evidenced by their superior denoising ability, the best ROC, and an enhanced ability to recover the original FC pattern. Conclusions: The findings of our study elucidate the varying impact of MA correction algorithms on brain FC analysis, which could serve as a reference for choosing the most appropriate method for future FC research. As guidance, we recommend using TDDR or wavelet filtering to minimize the impact of MA correction in brain network analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.