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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation.
Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Kay, A. R., & Tank, D. W. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868 · Cited by 6,483
Mehagnoul‐Schipper, D. J., van der Kallen, B. F. W., Colier, W. N. J. M., van der Sluijs, M. C., van Erning, L. J. T. O., Thijssen, H. O. M., Oeseburg, B., Hoefnagels, W. H. L., & Jansen, R. W. M. M. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.10026 · Cited by 264
Cited by
Overview of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Glover, G. H. (2011) · Neurosurgery Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.nec.2010.11.001 · Cited by 1,024
Self-citationCui, X., Bryant, D. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.003 · Cited by 807
Self-citationA NIRS-fMRI investigation of prefrontal cortex activity during a working memory task
Sato, H., Yahata, N., Funane, T., Takizawa, R., Katura, T., Atsumori, H., Nishimura, Y., Kinoshita, A., Kiguchi, M., Koizumi, H., et al. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.043 · Cited by 339
The self-regulating brain and neurofeedback: experimental science and clinical promise
Thibault, R. T., Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2016) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.10.024 · Cited by 272
Hirsch, J., Zhang, X., Noah, J. A., & Ono, Y. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.018 · Cited by 236
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.