Figure 1.
Schematic of fNIRS channel localization.
(A) and (C) display the left and right view of measurement channels on an anatomical brain image. (B) The arrangement of the whole-head 46 measurement channels on a brain template. Note that the red and purple solid circles represent sources and detectors, respectively.
Figure 2.
Demonstration of R-fNIRS brain network reliability analysis.
Figure 3.
Spatial similarity of RSFC maps.
Group-level RSFC maps for session 1 and session 2 and their Pearson correlation are displayed in the first to third columns. Figures (A) to (C) correspond to the RSFC data derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. High similarity between sessions was observed in both the qualitative visual inspection and quantitative correlational analysis.
Table 1.
Pearson correlations at individual-level RSFC maps between sessions.
Figure 4.
Reliability analysis of RSFC maps.
The first to third columns correspond to the data derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. (A, B) The TRT reliability of RSFC maps and their corresponding reliability distributions. The reliability displays approximately normal configuration for all 1035 (i.e., 46×45/2) connections. The connections exhibit good reliability across HbO (mean ICC values 0.70), HbR (0.65) and HbT (0.71). (C) The relationship between RSFC strength and reliability as assessed by scatterplots. Each dot represents the group-level RSFC strength and the corresponding ICC value at the same connections. The trend lines were obtained by a linear least-squares fit method. Significant (p<0.05) positive correlations were found for HbO and HbR signals, suggesting stronger RSFC leads to higher reliability for both these signals.
Figure 5.
TRT reliability of global network metrics as a function of sparsity threshold.
(A–C) The global metric reliability was derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. Five colors correspond to five different reliability grades. The red, yellow, green, cyan, and blue colors represent excellent (0.75< ICC <1), good (0.6< ICC <0.75), fair (0.4< ICC <0.6), low (0.25< ICC <0.4), and poor (ICC<0.25) reliability of global network metrics, respectively. Cp, Lp, γ, λ, and σ denote the clustering coefficient, characteristic path length, normalized clustering coefficient, normalized characteristic path length, and small-world, respectively. Eloc and Eglob denote local efficiency and global efficiency, respectively. Q, β, and r denote modularity, hierarchy, and assortativity, respectively.
Figure 6.
Threshold-independent reliability analysis of global network metrics.
The areas under the curves (AUCs) of each global metric were used to provide threshold-independent reliability evaluation. (A–C) The global metric reliability was derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. Cp, Lp, γ, λ, and σ denote the clustering coefficient, characteristic path length, normalized clustering coefficient, normalized characteristic path length, and small-world, respectively. Eloc and Eglob denote local efficiency and global efficiency, respectively. Q, β, and r denote modularity, hierarchy, and assortativity, respectively.
Table 2.
Significant differences in the global network metric (across subjects) between sessions revealed by a paired t-test.
Figure 7.
TRT reliability of nodal centrality metrics as a function of sparsity threshold.
(A–C) The nodal metric reliability was derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. The five colors correspond to five different reliability grades: red, yellow, green, cyan, and blue represent excellent (0.75< ICC <1), good (0.6< ICC <0.75), fair (0.4< ICC <0.6), low (0.25< ICC <0.4), and poor (ICC<0.25) reliability of the nodal centrality metrics, respectively.
Figure 8.
Threshold-independent reliability analysis of nodal centrality metrics.
The areas under the curves (AUCs) of each nodal metric were used to provide threshold-independent reliability evaluation. (A–C) The nodal reliability was derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. Different colors in the nodes correspond to different reliability grades: red, yellow, green, cyan, and blue colors represent excellent (0.75< ICC <1), good (0.6< ICC <0.75), fair (0.4< ICC <0.6), low (0.25< ICC <0.4), and poor (ICC<0.25) reliability of the nodal centrality metrics, respectively.
Figure 9.
Significant differences (paired t-test) in nodal metric reliability.
(A) Reliability for three nodal centrality metrics (degree, efficiency, and betweenness). (B) Reliability for three concentration signals (HbO, HbR, and HbT). Note that the reliability of nodal degree and efficiency is concordant across HbO, HbR, and HbT and is also significantly (p<0.0001) higher than that of nodal betweenness. Error bars correspond to the standard deviation of the mean across the total nodes. The double asterisk indicates p<0.0001.
Figure 10.
Threshold-independent reliability analysis of ICA- derived global network metrics.
The areas under the curves (AUCs) of each global metric were used to provide threshold-independent reliability evaluation. (A–C) The global metric reliability was derived from HbO, HbR, and HbT, respectively. Cp, Lp, γ, λ, and σ denote the clustering coefficient, characteristic path length, normalized clustering coefficient, normalized characteristic path length, and small-world, respectively. Eloc and Eglob denote local efficiency and global efficiency, respectively. Q, β, and r denote modularity, hierarchy, and assortativity, respectively.
Figure 11.
Significant differences (paired t-test) in ICA-derived nodal metric reliability.
(A) Reliability for three nodal centrality metrics (degree, efficiency, and betweenness). (B) Reliability for three concentration signals (HbO, HbR, and HbT). Each of these three concentration signals was denoised using ICA. Note that the reliability of nodal degree and efficiency is concordant across HbO, HbR, and HbT and is also significantly (p<0.0001) higher than that of nodal betweenness. Error bars correspond to the standard deviation of the mean across the total nodes. The double asterisk indicates p<0.0001.
Figure 12.
Reliability analysis of global network metrics derived from the correlation matrix randomization method.
The areas under the curves (AUCs) of each global metric were used to provide threshold-independent reliability evaluation. (A–C) show the frequency-derived (i.e. band-pass filter) global metric reliability and (D–F) show the ICA-derived global metric reliability.γ, λ, and σ denote the normalized clustering coefficient, normalized characteristic path length, and small-world, respectively.