4.5 Review

Variability of the hemodynamic response in infants: Influence of experimental design and stimulus complexity

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages 182-193

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.01.009

Keywords

fNIRS; Inverted Hemodynamic Response; Experimental complexity; Infants; Development

Funding

  1. HFSP Young Investigator Grant [RGY 0073/2014]
  2. ANR [ANR-15-CE37-0009-01]
  3. French Investissements d'Avenir - Labex EFL program [ANR-10-LABX-0083]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-15-CE37-0009] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measuring brain activity in developmental populations remains a major challenge despite great technological advances. Among the numerous available methods, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), an imaging modality that probes the hemodynamic response, is a powerful tool for recording brain activity in a great variety of situations and populations. Neurocognitive studies with infants have often reported inverted hemodynamic responses, i.e. a decrease instead of an increase in regional blood oxygenation, but the exact physiological explanation and cognitive interpretation of this response remain unclear. Here, we first provide an overview of the basic principles of NIRS and its use in cognitive developmental neuroscience. We then review the infant fNIRS literature to show that the hemodynamic response is modulated by experimental design and stimulus complexity, sometimes leading to hemodynamic responses with non-canonical shapes. We also argue that this effect is further modulated by the age of participants, the cortical regions involved, and the developmental stage of the tested cognitive process. We argue that this variability needs to be taken into account when designing and interpreting developmental studies measuring the hemodynamic response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available