Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A quantitative spatial comparison of high-density diffuse optical tomography and fMRI cortical mapping

Open access
Eggebrecht, Adam T., White, Brian R., Ferradal, Silvina L., Chen, Chunxiao, Zhan, Yuxuan, Snyder, Abraham Z., Dehghani, Hamid, Culver, Joseph P.·2012·NeuroImage

Abstract

Functional neuroimaging commands a dominant role in current neuroscience research. However its use in bedside clinical and certain neuro-scientific studies has been limited because the current tools lack the combination of being non-invasive, non-ionizing and portable while maintaining moderate resolution and localization accuracy. Optical neuroimaging satisfies many of these requirements, but, until recent advances in high-density diffuse optical tomography (HD-DOT), has been hampered by limited resolution. While early results of HD-DOT have been promising, a quantitative voxel-wise comparison and validation of HD-DOT against the gold standard of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been lacking. Herein, we provide such an analysis within the visual cortex using matched visual stimulation protocols in a single group of subjects (n=5) during separate HD-DOT and fMRI scanning sessions. To attain the needed voxel-to-voxel co-registration between HD-DOT and fMRI image spaces, we implemented subject-specific head modeling that incorporated MRI anatomy, detailed segmentation, and alignment of source and detector positions. Comparisons of the visual responses found an average localization error between HD-DOT and fMRI of 4.4 +/− 1 mm, significantly less than the average distance between cortical gyri. This specificity demonstrates that HD-DOT has sufficient image quality to be useful as a surrogate for fMRI.

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.2012.01.124

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Eggebrecht, A. T., White, B. R., Ferradal, S. L., Chen, C., Zhan, Y., Snyder, A. Z., Dehghani, H., & Culver, J. P.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
1120-1128
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154244503
Cited by
239
References
3
FWCI
9.57
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 spatial comparison of high-density diffuse optical tomography and fMRI cortical mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.124
The paper
Eggebrecht, A. T., White, B. R., Ferradal, S. L., Chen, C., Zhan, Y., Snyder, A. Z., Dehghani, H., & Culver, J. P. (2012). A quantitative spatial comparison of high-density diffuse optical tomography and fMRI cortical mapping. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.124

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.