Event-related functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS): Are the measurements reliable?
By M. Plichta, M. Herrmann, C. Baehne, Ann-Christine Ehlis, M. Richter, Paul Pauli, Andreas J. Fallgatter. NeuroImage, 2006
362 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc8a16fde31f6d121a16d1a3b6b6a9b220a3d0e5
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Biomedical Engineering
- Felix Scholkmann
- Stefan Kleiser
- Martin Wolf
- Andreas Jaakko Metz
- Raphael Zimmermann
- Ursula Wolf
- Juan Mata Pavia
In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
- Felix Scholkmann
- Stefan Kleiser
- Martin Wolf
- Andreas Jaakko Metz
- Raphael Zimmermann
- Ursula Wolf
- Juan Mata Pavia
Citations in the corpus
- A review on continuous wave functional near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging instrumentation and methodology (2014, background): “It has been shown that fNIRI is reliable and trustworthy for research based on investigating groups of subjects, although reliability in single subjects is not sufficient yet (Kono et al., 2007; Plichta et al., 2006, 2007a,b; Schecklmann et al., 2008).”
- A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks (2010, neutral): “(Plichta et al., 2006) found strong reproducibility of group-level event-related activations of visual cortex, but poor reproducibility at the single-subject level.”
- Statistical analysis of fNIRS data: A comprehensive review (2014, neutral): “For example, in Plichta et al. (2006), to estimate the statistical significance of fNIRS response during task periods , the Bonferroni correction and the Dubey/Armitage–Parmar alpha boundary (Sankoh et al., 1997) were used for statistical inference of activated channels.”