The reproducibility of infant fNIRS studies: a meta-analytic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance Concerns about the reproducibility of experimental findings have recently emerged in many disciplines, from psychology to medicine and neuroscience. As NIRS is a relatively recent brain imaging technique, the question of reproducibility has not yet been systematically addressed. Aim The current study seeks to test the replicability of effects observed in NIRS experiments assessing young infants’ rule-learning ability. Approach We conducted meta-analyses and mixed-effects modeling-based inferential statistics to determine whether effect sizes were replicable and comparable in a sample of 23 NIRS studies investigating infants’ abilities to process repetition- and diversity-based regularities in linguistic and nonlinguistic auditory and visual sequences. Additionally, we tested whether effect sizes were modulated by different factors such as the age of participants or the laboratory. We obtained NIRS data from 12 published and 11 unpublished studies. The 23 studies involved a total of 487 infants, aged between 0 and 9 months, tested in four different countries (Canada, France, Italy, and USA). Results Our most important finding is that study and laboratory were never significant moderators of variation in effect sizes, indicating that results replicated reliably across the different studies and labs included in the sample. We observed small-to-moderate effect sizes, similar to effect sizes found with other neuroimaging and behavioral techniques in the developmental literature. In line with existing findings, effect sizes were modulated by the participants’ age and differed across the different regularities tested, with repetition-based regularities giving rise to the strongest effects; in particular, the overall magnitude of this effect in the left temporal region was 0.27 when analyzing the entire dataset. Conclusions Meta-analysis is a useful tool for assessing replicability and cross-study variability. Here, we have shown that infant NIRS studies in the language domain replicate robustly across various NIRS machines, testing sites, and developmental populations.
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 | 0.122 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".