Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 557

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

Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: A comparison of motion correction techniques applied to real cognitive data

Open access
Brigadoi, Sabrina, Ceccherini, Lisa, Cutini, Simone, Scarpa, Fabio, Scatturin, Pietro, Selb, Juliette, Gagnon, Louis, Boas, David A., Cooper, Robert J.·2014·NeuroImage

Abstract

Motion artifacts are a significant source of noise in many functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) experiments. Despite this, there is no well-established method for their removal. Instead, functional trials of fNIRS data containing a motion artifact are often rejected completely. However, in most experimental circumstances the number of trials is limited, and multiple motion artifacts are common, particularly in challenging populations. Many methods have been proposed recently to correct for motion artifacts, including principle component analysis, spline interpolation, Kalman filtering, wavelet filtering and correlation-based signal improvement. The performance of different techniques has been often compared in simulations, but only rarely has it been assessed on real functional data. Here, we compare the performance of these motion correction techniques on real functional data acquired during a cognitive task, which required the participant to speak aloud, leading to a low-frequency, low-amplitude motion artifact that is correlated with the hemodynamic response. To compare the efficacy of these methods, objective metrics related to the physiology of the hemodynamic response have been derived. Our results show that it is always better to correct for motion artifacts than reject trials, and that wavelet filtering is the most effective approach to correcting this type of artifact, reducing the area under the curve where the artifact is present in 93% of the cases. Our results therefore support previous studies that have shown wavelet filtering to be the most promising and powerful technique for the correction of motion artifacts in fNIRS data. The analyses performed here can serve as a guide for others to objectively test the impact of different motion correction algorithms and therefore select the most appropriate for the analysis of their own fNIRS experiment.

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.2013.04.082

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 557

Metadata

Authors
Brigadoi, S., Ceccherini, L., Cutini, S., Scarpa, F., Scatturin, P., Selb, J., Gagnon, L., Boas, D. A., & Cooper, R. J.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
85
Pages
181-191
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999340799
Cited by
557
References
3
FWCI
12.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: A comparison of motion correction techniques applied to real cognitive data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.082
The paper
Brigadoi, S., Ceccherini, L., Cutini, S., Scarpa, F., Scatturin, P., Selb, J., Gagnon, L., Boas, D. A., & Cooper, R. J. (2014). Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: A comparison of motion correction techniques applied to real cognitive data. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.082

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.