ArticleNeurophotonics2026
Group-level test-retest reliability assessment using systemic physiology augmented functional near-infrared spectroscopy during a passive-listening task.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the reliability of functional near-infrared spectroscopy data in the context of a reasoning paradigm.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a valuable neuroimaging technique for auditory-research tasks. However, fNIRS data are influenced by systemic-physiological processes, resulting in noisier signal quality that may compromise test-retest reliability. fNIRS reliability may also be influenced by changes in cap placement across sessions. Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of systemic-physiology denoising methods on the test-retest reliability of group-level fNIRS data during a passive-listening task. Approach: Fifteen participants completed two identical sessions of a passive-listening task; source-detector optode locations were digitized for each session. Different denoising methods were compared to investigate the effect of systemic-physiology correction on the consistency of across-session hemodynamic response amplitudes. Test-retest reliability for each method was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Changes in optode and channel locations across sessions were calculated to track shifts in cap placement. Results: Results revealed significant speech-evoked activity in bilateral auditory cortices following stimuli presentation. Group-level test-retest reliability metrics demonstrated good reliability across two identical test sessions. Accounting for the influence of systemic physiology resulted in improved reliability. Slight variations in optode placement did not significantly affect signal repeatability. Conclusion: This study supports the use of fNIRS for group-level task-evoked studies, demonstrating that systemic-physiology denoising methods can modestly improve test-retest reliability.
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.