Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 945

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks

Open access
Cui, Xu, Bray, Signe, Bryant, Daniel M., Glover, Gary H., Reiss, Allan L.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is an increasingly popular technology for studying brain function. NIRS presents several advantages relative to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), such as measurement of concentration changes in both oxygenated- and deoxygenated hemoglobin, finer temporal resolution, and ease of administration, as well as disadvantages, most prominently inferior spatial resolution and decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). While fMRI has become the gold standard for in vivo imaging of the human brain, in practice NIRS is a more convenient and less expensive technology than fMRI. It is therefore of interest to many researchers how NIRS compares to fMRI in studies of brain function. In the present study we scanned participants with simultaneous NIRS and fMRI on a battery of cognitive tasks, placing NIRS probes over both frontal and parietal brain regions. We performed detailed comparisons of the signals in both temporal and spatial domains. We found that NIRS signals have significantly weaker SNR, but are nonetheless often highly correlated with fMRI measurements. Both SNR and the distance between the scalp and the brain contributed to variability in the NIRS/fMRI correlations. In the spatial domain, we found that a photon path forming an ellipse between the NIRS emitter and detector correlated most strongly with the BOLD response. Taken together these findings suggest that, while NIRS can be an appropriate substitute for fMRI for studying brain activity related to cognitive tasks, care should be taken when designing studies with NIRS to ensure that: 1) the spatial resolution is adequate for answering the question of interest and 2) the design accounts for weaker SNR, especially in brain regions more distal from the scalp.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.069

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 945

Metadata

Authors
Cui, X., Bray, S., Bryant, D. M., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-02
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
2808-2821
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092770659
Cited by
945
References
2
FWCI
19.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.069
The paper
Cui, X., Bray, S., Bryant, D. M., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L. (2011). A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.069

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.