Assessing the Validity and Reliability of HD-DOT TD-fNIRS Resting-State Measurements in Rapid Succession Data Collection Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has long been a cornerstone in the study of brain activity, but its high operational costs, limited availability, and restricted practical applicability have led researchers to seek alternative neuroimaging technologies. Recent advancements in high-density diffuse optical tomography (HD-DOT) and Time-Domain (TD) functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) have emerged as promising solutions, offering the ability to generate detailed tomographic maps of hemodynamic fluctuations associated with neural activity. In this study, using the Kernel Flow device, we assess the performance of HD-DOT TD-fNIRS in terms of signal validity and reliability, particularly in rapid succession data collection settings. We conducted a multiple test-retest experiment involving fNIRS recordings from three participants across 20 ten-minute sessions of eyes-open resting-state brain activity over six days. Our findings indicate that HD-DOT TD-fNIRS systems like the Kernel Flow can reproduce hemodynamic patterns identified by fMRI, albeit with less spatial detail, and can detect resting state networks overall, though some individual network detections are not significant. The system performs consistently over days, with more variability within the time of day, and can capture subject-specific patterns with high accuracy as identified through FC fingerprinting analysis. We conclude that the new generation of HD-DOT TD-fNIRS systems holds significant promise for enhancing and expanding the measurement of functional brain data in both clinical and more naturalistic research settings. This study represents an important step towards a comprehensive understanding of the data quality and consistency achievable with these innovative neuroimaging devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".