ArticleNeurophotonics2024
NiReject: toward automated bad channel detection in functional near-infrared spectroscopy.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-differences in resting state dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: comparing motion correction methods in resting state functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- DL-QC-fNIRS: a deep learning tool for automated quality control in functional near-infrared spectroscopy signals.Neurophotonics · 2026Article
- Investigating the effect of channel pruning on functional near-infrared spectroscopy data collected from children aged 5 to 24 months.Neurophotonics · 2026Article
- Impulsivity, time perception and non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents: from behavioral and fNIRS evidence.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: The increasing sample sizes and channel densities in functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) necessitate precise and scalable identification of signals that do not permit reliable analysis to exclude them. Despite the relevance of detecting these "bad channels," little is known about the behavior of fNIRS detection methods, and the potential of unsupervised and semi-supervised machine learning remains unexplored. Aim: We developed three novel machine learning-based detectors, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and hybrid NiReject, and compared them with existing approaches. Approach: We conducted a systematic literature search and demonstrated the influence of bad channel detection. Based on 29,924 signals from two independently rated datasets and a simulated scenario space of diverse phenomena, we evaluated the NiReject models, six of the most established detection methods in fNIRS, and 11 prominent methods from other domains. Results: Although the results indicated that a lack of proper detection can strongly bias findings, detection methods were reported in only 32% of the included studies. Semi-supervised models, specifically semi-supervised NiReject, outperformed both established thresholding-based and unsupervised detectors. Hybrid NiReject, utilizing a human feedback loop, addressed the practical challenges of semi-supervised methods while maintaining precise detection and low rating effort. Conclusions: This work contributes toward more automated and reliable fNIRS signal quality control by comprehensively evaluating existing and introducing novel machine learning-based techniques and outlining practical considerations for bad channel detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.