Overcoming the Hair Barrier: A Research-Focused Guide to Optimizing fNIRS Signal Quality

Abstract

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) offers immense potential for neuroimaging in real-world settings, but its signal quality is critically compromised by hair and skin characteristics, risking biased data and exclusion of diverse populations. This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and drug development professionals on the foundational science, methodological adaptations, and validation strategies necessary to ensure high-quality, reproducible fNIRS data from hair-covered regions. We synthesize recent 2025 findings on how biophysical traits impact signal acquisition, detail practical hardware and software solutions from high-density arrays to inclusive protocols, and establish frameworks for troubleshooting and comparative analysis. The goal is to equip scientists with the knowledge to enhance inclusivity, accuracy, and reliability in fNIRS-based research and clinical applications.

Understanding the Biophysical Barriers: How Hair and Skin Compromise fNIRS Signals

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why do hair and skin characteristics affect fNIRS signal quality? fNIRS relies on near-infrared light traveling from a source optode through scalp and brain tissue to a detector. Hair and skin melanin are dominant absorbers of this light. Dense or dark hair can reduce light intensity by 20-50%, while higher skin melanin concentrations cause greater light absorption, reducing the effective pathlength and potentially leading to an underestimation of hemodynamic changes [1] [2]. This creates a dual challenge: mechanical obstruction from hair preventing optode-scalp contact, and increased light absorption by melanin [2].

Q2: Which specific hair properties most impact signal quality? The critical properties are color, density, thickness, and type (e.g., straight, wavy, curly, kinky) [3] [4]. Darker, thicker, and curlier hair poses greater challenges. Coarse, curly hair can physically block optode contact and may revert to its natural state during long experiments, displacing optodes and degrading signal over time [2].

Q3: How does skin pigmentation fundamentally bias fNIRS measurements? fNIRS analysis often uses the Modified Beer-Lambert Law, which assumes hemoglobin is the main absorber and that light pathlength is constant across skin tones. However, melanin—a strong chromophore in the epidermis—violates these assumptions. Higher melanin concentrations absorb more light, systematically attenuating the signal and potentially causing inaccurate, likely underestimated, measurements of relative hemoglobin changes [1] [2]. This bias particularly affects individuals with skin pigmentation darker than level 2 on the Fitzpatrick scale (1=lightest, 6=darkest) [1].

Q4: What are the real-world consequences of these biases? If unaddressed, these biases risk disproportionately excluding diverse populations from fNIRS research. Studies have shown that individuals with darker skin tones and curlier hair types, often from African, African-American, and Caribbean descent, face higher exclusion rates, leading to datasets that underrepresent these groups and limit the generalizability of findings [5] [2].

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Optimizing Cap Placement and Hair Management

Problem: Poor optode-scalp coupling due to hair.

Solutions:

• Cap Placement Directionality: Place the cap from front to back to prevent hair from falling forward under the optodes, ensuring a more secure fit [4].
• Hair Parting and Management: Use a cotton-tipped applicator to gently part hair and push it away from under the optodes. For stubborn hair, a small amount of ultrasound gel can be applied via the applicator to help secure hair away from the optode contact point [4] [1].
• Secure Stabilization: Use a chin strap to stabilize the cap and prevent movement during experiments. For systems with heavy cables, use Velcro attachments and adjustable cable management arms to relieve strain and reduce pressure on the participant's head [4].

Guide 2: Improving Signal Quality for Darker Skin Tones

Problem: Signal attenuation due to high melanin concentration in the skin.

Solutions:

• Acknowledge the Limitation: Recognize that current fNIRS systems and the Modified Beer-Lambert Law do not fully account for melanin's effects. Report skin tone (e.g., using Fitzpatrick Scale) as part of your study metadata [2].
• Use Short-Separation Channels: Incorporate short-separation channels (~8 mm) to measure and regress out systemic physiological noise and signal components originating from the skin surface [4] [6].
• Focus on Signal Quality Metrics: Rely on objective signal quality metrics like the Scalp Coupling Index (SCI), which quantifies the presence of the cardiac pulse in the fNIRS signal. Use this to identify and exclude poor-quality channels [1].

Guide 3: Mitigating Ambient Light Interference

Problem: Ambient light contaminating the fNIRS signal, especially with imperfect optode-scalp contact.

Solutions:

• Control Lighting: Turn off pulse-wave modulated LED overhead lights and use incandescent floor lamps instead [4].
• Block Light Leakage: Place an opaque shower cap or similar light-blocking material over the entire fNIRS cap to block ambient light from computer monitors or other sources [4] [7].

Table 1: Impact of Participant Characteristics on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Primary Effect on Signal	Quantitative Impact & Notes
Hair Color	Increased absorption with darker color	Dark hair reduces light intensity by 20-50% compared to lighter hair [2].
Hair Type/Texture	Mechanical obstruction, poor optode-scalp contact	Coarse, curly, dense hair blocks physical contact; can cause signal drift as hair reverts to natural state [2].
Skin Pigmentation	Increased absorption, reduced pathlength	Systematic attenuation; biases data for skin > Fitzpatrick level 2; can lead to underestimation of Δ[Hb] [1] [2].
Head Size/Age	Variation in tissue thickness and optode distance	Smaller head size (e.g., children) can lead to channel overexposure due to thinner tissues and shorter optode distances [1].

Table 2: Essential Signal Quality Metrics and Thresholds

Metric	Description	Acceptance Threshold
Scalp Coupling Index (SCI)	Quantifies presence of cardiac pulse in raw signal. Correlates 760nm & 850nm [1].	>0.8 (Good: >0.9, Medium: 0.8-0.9, Bad/Below: <0.8) [1].
Channel Overexposure	Signal intensity exceeds detector range; appears as flat line with spikes [1].	Check optode contact, use distance guards if needed, recalibrate gain.
Physiological Noise	Presence of cardiac (~1 Hz) and Mayer waves (~0.1 Hz) indicates good signal [1].	Look for clear pulse peak and ~0.1 Hz sinusoidal oscillations in the signal.

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol: Comprehensive fNIRS Data Collection for Diverse Phenotypes

This protocol is derived from a study recruiting 115 participants to quantify the impact of hair, skin, head size, sex, and age on fNIRS signal quality [4].

1. Pre-Collection Preparation:

• Materials: fNIRS system (e.g., NIRSport2), 3D-printed flexible cap (e.g., NinjaCap), melanometer (for Melanin Index), high-resolution trichoscopy for hair imaging, alcohol pads, cotton-tipped applicators, ultrasound gel, opaque shower cap [4].
• Cap Sizing: Measure head circumference and select appropriate cap size (e.g., 55 cm or 57 cm) [4].

2. Cap Placement and Signal Optimization ("Proper Capping"):

• Clean the participant's forehead with alcohol pads.
• Attach a chin strap for stabilization.
• Place the cap from front to back to prevent forward hair fall.
• Perform an initial, brief (<1 min) "fast capping" optode adjustment to establish preliminary coupling.
• Run the system's signal optimization software (e.g., Aurora's Signal Optimization).
• Conduct thorough hair management: use cotton-tipped applicators to part hair and push it from under optodes. Apply a small amount of ultrasound gel if necessary to secure hair away from the optode contact point.
• Re-run signal optimization after proper adjustment [4].

3. Environmental Optimization:

• Turn off overhead LED lights and switch on incandescent floor lamps.
• Place an opaque shower cap over the fNIRS cap to block ambient light.
• Verify that optimal signal quality is maintained before starting recordings [4].

4. Data Collection Paradigm:

• Collect two runs of three-minute resting-state data (one after fast capping, one after proper capping) to compare signal improvement.
• Include a task-based run (e.g., a six-minute ball-squeezing motor task) [4].
• Use a combination of long-separation (~30 mm) and short-separation (~8 mm) channels [4].

Workflow Diagram: fNIRS Signal Optimization Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Inclusive fNIRS Research

Item	Function/Benefit
3D-Printed Flexible Cap (e.g., NinjaCap)	Made from flexible filament (NinjaFlex); provides better conformity to head shape and accommodation of varied hair volumes [4].
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Essential tool for gently parting hair and moving it away from under optodes to improve scalp contact without causing discomfort [4] [1].
Ultrasound Gel	A small amount applied via applicator helps secure hair away from the optode and can improve optical coupling [4].
Melanometer	Device to quantitatively measure skin pigmentation (Melanin Index) for objective reporting instead of subjective categorization [4].
High-Resolution Trichoscopy	Imaging technique for detailed characterization of hair properties like density, thickness, and type [4].
Short-Separation Detectors	Optodes placed ~8 mm from sources to measure signals from superficial layers (skin, skull), allowing for regression of systemic physiological noise [4] [6].
Opaque Shower Cap/Light-Blocking Material	Placed over the fNIRS cap to block ambient light from contaminating the signal, crucial for data integrity [4] [7].

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a non-invasive neuroimaging technology that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood oxygenation. Its promise for use in real-world settings and diverse populations is challenged by a critical technical issue: its signal quality is highly sensitive to individual differences in biophysical factors, particularly hair and skin characteristics [8] [9]. Near-infrared light, the core of this technology, is absorbed and scattered by these characteristics. If not properly addressed, this can bias research outcomes by systematically reducing data quality for participants with certain traits, such as darker, denser, or thicker hair, as well as more highly pigmented skin [10] [4] [11]. This technical note, framed within a broader thesis on improving fNIRS signal quality, provides evidence-based troubleshooting guides and protocols to help researchers overcome these barriers and enhance the inclusivity of their studies.

---

Key Quantitative Findings from the 2025 Study

A pivotal 2025 study by Yücel et al. systematically quantified the impact of various participant-level factors on fNIRS signal quality using data from 115 participants [8] [9] [4]. The table below summarizes the core quantitative relationships identified.

Table 1: Impact of Participant Characteristics on fNIRS Signal Quality

Characteristic	Impact on fNIRS Signal Quality	Primary Reason
Hair Density & Thickness	Negative correlation (higher density/thickness = lower quality) [4]	Denser hair absorbs and scatters more light, reducing photons that reach the cortex [4] [11].
Hair Color (Darker)	Negative correlation (darker color = lower quality) [4]	Darker hair (e.g., black, brown) absorbs more near-infrared light than lighter hair (e.g., blonde) [4].
Skin Pigmentation	Negative correlation (darker skin = lower quality) [4] [11]	Higher melanin content in darker skin increases absorption of near-infrared light [4].
Head Size	Can influence signal quality [4] [11]	Larger head size increases the distance light must travel, leading to greater signal attenuation.
Hair Type (e.g., curly, kinky)	Can interfere with optode-scalp coupling [4]	Natural hair structure can prevent optodes from making firm, direct contact with the scalp.

These factors risk disproportionately affecting signal quality across diverse populations, potentially leading to their underrepresentation in neuroimaging research [8] [10]. A separate study on stroke survivors reinforced these findings, noting that fNIRS signals were generally worse for Black women compared to Black men and White individuals, highlighting equity concerns in the application of this technology [5].

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

To conduct inclusive and high-quality fNIRS research, specific tools and materials are essential. The following table details key items used in the featured study and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Materials for fNIRS Research on Diverse Populations

Item	Function / Purpose
Continuous-Wave fNIRS System (e.g., NIRSport2)	The core imaging device that emits near-infrared light and detects its intensity after passing through tissues [4].
Customizable Headgear (e.g., 3D-printed NinjaCap)	A flexible cap that can be tailored to individual head size and shape, improving stability and comfort across participants [4].
Short-Separation Detectors (~8 mm)	Placed close to light sources to measure physiological "noise" from the scalp and skin, enabling its regression from the brain signal [4].
Melanometer	A device that quantifies skin pigmentation by providing a standardized Melanin Index, allowing researchers to objectively account for this variable [4].
High-Resolution Trichoscopy	An imaging technique used to objectively measure hair properties like density, thickness, and type [4].
Ultrasound Gel	Applied to optodes to enhance optical coupling between the sensor and the scalp, especially useful for navigating through hair [4].
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Essential tools for gently parting hair and moving it away from under the optodes to improve scalp contact [4].

---

Experimental Protocols for Enhanced Signal Quality

The 2025 study established a detailed protocol to optimize signal acquisition. The workflow for ensuring high-quality data from a diverse participant pool is summarized in the diagram below.

Detailed Protocol Steps

• Cap Selection and Placement

  • Select a cap size (e.g., 55 cm or 57 cm) based on the participant's head circumference [4].
  • Place the cap on the head starting from the front and gently extending it toward the back. This front-to-back directionality helps prevent hair from falling forward and under the optodes, which is a common source of poor coupling [4].
  • Position the cap using anatomical landmarks (e.g., aligning the Cz marker midway between nasion and inion) for consistency across participants [4].

• Hair Management and Optode Coupling

  • Fast Capping: Perform a brief (<1 minute) initial optode adjustment to establish preliminary scalp coupling [4].
  • Proper Capping: Before the main data collection, perform thorough adjustments guided by real-time signal monitoring in the acquisition software [4].
  • Techniques: Use cotton-tipped applicators to push hair from under the optodes to the side. If needed, a small amount of ultrasound gel can be applied directly under the optode. For this, the optode may be temporarily removed from its grommet, gel applied as hair is pushed aside, and the optode then replaced [4].

• Signal and Environmental Optimization

  • Use the acquisition software's continuous monitoring and "Signal Optimization" functions to guide and verify optode adjustments [4].
  • To minimize interference from ambient light, turn off overhead pulse-wave modulated LED lights and use incandescent floor lamps instead. Place an opaque shower cap over the fNIRS cap to block additional light sources like computer monitors [4].

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the single most impactful step I can take to improve signal quality for participants with thick, curly hair?

The most impactful step is investing time in thorough "proper capping" and hair management. This involves using cotton-tipped applicators to systematically part the hair and ensure firm optode-scalp contact, potentially aided by a small amount of ultrasound gel. The 2025 study showed that signal quality improved significantly after this meticulous process compared to a quick "fast capping" approach [4].

Q2: Our research includes participants with a wide range of skin tones. How can we account for this in our data analysis?

• During Data Collection: Objectively measure skin pigmentation using a melanometer (Melanin Index) and record this metadata for all participants [4].
• During Data Processing: Incorporate short-separation channels into your analysis pipeline. These channels measure systemic noise from the scalp and skin, and regressing this signal out of the long-channel data can help mitigate the confounding effects of skin pigmentation [4].

Q3: Are there specific types of fNIRS caps or hardware that are better for inclusive research?

Yes. The use of customizable, flexible caps (e.g., 3D-printed NinjaCap made from NinjaFlex material) is recommended because they can better adapt to different head sizes and shapes, improving stability and comfort [4]. Furthermore, hardware with integrated short-separation detectors is essential for dealing with the physiological confounds that may vary with demographics [4].

Q4: Where can I find the data and code from the key 2025 study to validate my own methods?

The data and code from the Yücel et al. (2025) study have been made publicly available to foster reproducibility and further research. The data is available on OpenNeuro (dataset ds006377), and the analysis code is available in the same dataset's directory as well as on GitHub (github.com/mayucel/InclusionStudy) [9].

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a powerful neuroimaging tool prized for its non-invasiveness and adaptability to real-world settings. However, its signal quality is inherently sensitive to a range of individual biophysical factors. While the challenge of hair is well-known, a comprehensive approach must also consider skin pigmentation, head size, sex, and age. If not properly addressed, these factors risk biasing research outcomes by disproportionately affecting signal quality across diverse populations, thereby threatening the inclusivity and generalizability of fNIRS findings [8] [3].

This guide provides a technical support framework to help researchers troubleshoot and mitigate these combined factors, moving toward more equitable and robust fNIRS research.

FAQs: Understanding the Combined Biophysical Factors

Q1: How do skin pigmentation and hair characteristics jointly affect fNIRS signals? Skin pigmentation and hair properties both influence how near-infrared light is absorbed and scattered. Melanin in the skin absorbs light, reducing the intensity that reaches the brain and returns to the detector. Simultaneously, hair—particularly dark, thick, or high-density hair with strong curl patterns—scatters and blocks light, further attenuating the signal [8] [12] [5]. This combination can create a compounded signal loss, making it a critical consideration for inclusive study design.

Q2: Are certain demographic groups more likely to experience poorer fNIRS signal quality? Yes, research indicates that signal quality is not uniform across populations. For example, one study found that Black women showed generally worse fNIRS signals compared to Black men and White individuals, highlighting how the intersection of gender and race can impact data quality [5]. This underscores the need for hardware and methodological advancements to ensure equity in fNIRS research.

Q3: Why is it important to report participant demographics like ethnicity and hair type in publications? A biased selection of participants can limit the generalizability of neuroimaging findings. Reporting detailed demographics, including hair properties and ethnicity, is a best practice that enhances the reliability, repeatability, and traceability of fNIRS studies. It allows for better interpretation and replication of research and helps the community identify and address inclusivity gaps [13].

Q4: What is the relationship between head size, age, and signal quality? Head size and age are often correlated, particularly in developmental populations. Head size can influence the optimal source-detector separation distance, while age-related changes in scalp thickness, skull density, and brain morphology can affect light propagation [8] [3]. These factors should be considered during probe placement and cap sizing, especially in studies encompassing a wide age range.

Troubleshooting Guides & Experimental Protocols

Guide 1: Pre-Data Collection Checklist

Optimizing signal quality begins before data collection. Use this checklist to prepare.

• Assess Participant Factors: Prior to the session, note the participant's hair type, density, and color, as well as an estimate of skin pigmentation. This information, summarized in the metadata table below, will guide your hardware and setup choices [8] [13].
• Select and Customize Hardware: Choose a cap size that fits the participant's head circumference. For participants with dense or curly hair, consider using specialized optode attachments like the Mini Comb, which can reduce hair clearance time by nearly 50% while achieving comparable signal-to-noise ratios to standard methods [12].
• Prepare Hair Management Tools: Have a kit ready with wide-tooth combs, fine-tooth combs, and detangling tools. Matching the comb design to the hair type has been shown to improve signal quality [12].

Guide 2: Optimizing Optode-Scalp Coupling

A clear pathway for light to the scalp is critical. The following workflow provides a strategic method for achieving optimal optode-scalp contact, especially on hair-covered regions.

Guide 3: A Protocol for Inclusive Data Collection & Preprocessing

Follow this detailed experimental protocol to enhance signal quality across diverse participants.

• Cap and Optode Configuration:

  • Use head caps that come in multiple sizes to accommodate different head circumferences [14].
  • For adult populations, ensure source-detector distances are typically set at 3 cm to optimize the depth of penetration and signal strength [15] [16].
  • Utilize spring-loaded grommets or other compliant mechanisms that help optodes maintain firm contact with the scalp through hair [14].

• Signal Quality Assessment & Channel Exclusion:

  • Before the main experiment, run a short baseline recording.
  • Visually inspect the optical density signal for the presence of a cardiac pulsation in the ~830-850 nm wavelength, which indicates good scalp coupling [17].
  • Employ automated quality metrics, such as the Scalp Coupling Index (SCI), to objectively identify "bad channels" with poor signal quality that should be excluded from further analysis [5]. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) is another widely used automated method [17].

• Advanced Preprocessing for Physiological Noise:

  • Motion Artifact Correction: Apply motion correction algorithms, such as wavelet-based filtering or spline interpolation, to correct for spikes and baseline shifts caused by head movements [17] [15].
  • Bandpass Filtering: Use a band-pass filter (e.g., 0.01 - 0.2 Hz) to remove very low-frequency drift and high-frequency physiological noise like heart rate (~1 Hz) and respiration (~0.3 Hz) [17] [16].
  • Remove Global Physiology: To enhance sensitivity to neuronal activity, employ techniques like short-separation channel regression, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), or Global Average (GloAvg) signal removal to mitigate the influence of systemic physiological noise [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Materials and Analytical Tools for Enhanced fNIRS Research

Item Name	Category	Function & Explanation
Mini Comb Attachments	Hardware Add-on	3D-printed, customizable attachments for commercial fNIRS caps that clear hair via a twisting motion, significantly reducing setup time and improving inclusivity [12].
Spring-Loaded Grommets	Hardware Component	Optode holders that use springs to maintain consistent pressure against the scalp, ensuring better contact through hair [14].
Short-Separation Channels	Hardware/Software	Channels with a small source-detector separation (e.g., ~0.8 cm) that predominantly measure systemic physiology in superficial layers, allowing for its regression from the standard channels [17].
Wavelet-Based Motion Correction	Software Algorithm	A powerful method for identifying and correcting motion artifacts in the fNIRS signal, particularly effective for high-frequency spikes [17].
Scalp Coupling Index (SCI)	Software Metric	An automated quality metric used to identify channels with poor optode-scalp coupling based on the correlation of the cardiac signal across wavelengths, enabling objective channel exclusion [5].

Table 2: Impact of Biophysical Factors on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Documented Impact on Signal Quality	Recommended Mitigation Strategy
Skin Pigmentation	Higher melanin concentration increases light absorption, reducing detected signal intensity [8] [3].	Ensure sufficient laser power; use light sources with high output intensity; report participant skin tone metadata [8] [13].
Hair Characteristics	Dark, thick, dense, and curly/coily hair causes significant light scattering and attenuation, drastically reducing SNR [8] [12] [5].	Use customized comb attachments (e.g., Mini Comb); apply hair gels or parts; implement robust channel exclusion based on signal quality [12] [17].
Head Size	Affects optimal source-detector distance and cap fit, influencing penetration depth and signal strength [8] [3].	Use adjustable or multiple-sized head caps; validate sensitivity to regions-of-interest through photon migration modeling [14] [13].
Sex & Gender	Intersection with other factors (e.g., race) can lead to disparities, e.g., poorer signals recorded for Black women [5].	Adopt inclusive hardware and methodologies; report gender and ethnicity demographics transparently to identify biases [5] [13].
Age	Correlated with changes in head size, scalp thickness, and skull density, affecting light propagation, especially in infants and older adults [8] [3].	Utilize age-appropriate cap sizes and source-detector distances; account for age in group-level analyses.

Advancing fNIRS research requires a deliberate shift beyond treating hair as a solitary challenge. By acknowledging and systematically addressing the combined effects of skin pigmentation, head size, sex, and age, researchers can significantly enhance data quality and equity. This involves adopting inclusive hardware and methodologies, implementing rigorous preprocessing pipelines, and maintaining transparent reporting practices. These steps are crucial for building a more inclusive and reproducible future for fNIRS neuroimaging.

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

FAQ: Understanding and Mitigating fNIRS Signal Bias

Q1: What are the primary participant-level factors that can bias fNIRS signal quality? fNIRS signal quality is significantly influenced by several biophysical factors related to the participant's physiology. If not properly addressed, these factors can systematically bias your data and limit the inclusivity of your study populations. The key factors are:

• Hair Characteristics: Both hair color and density are major sources of signal attenuation. Darker hair (black, brown) absorbs more near-infrared (NIR) light, reducing signal intensity. Higher hair density can physically interfere with optode-scalp coupling and further block or scatter light [4] [7]. One study found that darker hair colors can reduce signal intensity by 20–50% [7].
• Skin Pigmentation: Skin with higher melanin content (darker skin) absorbs more NIR light, which can reduce the amount of light that penetrates the scalp and skull to reach the cerebral cortex [4].
• Head Size and Anatomy: Variations in head size and the structural anatomy of the scalp and skull can affect light propagation, influencing signal strength and quality across different individuals [4].
• Systemic Physiological Noise: Signals originating from the scalp (extracerebral tissue), such as those caused by cardiac cycle, respiration, and blood pressure changes (e.g., Mayer waves), can contaminate the fNIRS signal and be misinterpreted as brain activity [18].

Q2: How does bias in fNIRS data manifest in real-world research? Bias can lead to systematic exclusion or poor-quality data from specific demographic groups, ultimately skewing research findings. For example, a 2025 study on stroke survivors found that "fNIRS signals were generally worse for Black women compared to Black men and White individuals regardless of gender" [5]. This demonstrates how the combined effect of skin pigmentation and hair characteristics can create inherent biases in optical instruments, threatening the equity and generalizability of neuroimaging research [5].

Q3: What practical steps can I take during data collection to improve signal quality across diverse participants? Implementing meticulous data collection protocols is your first line of defense against signal bias.

• Optimize Optode-Scalp Coupling: Do not rely on a simple "place and go" approach. Use techniques like gently moving or "wiggling" optodes to part hair underneath. Tools like cotton-tipped applicators can be used to push hair away from the optode site. For challenging cases, a small amount of ultrasound gel can be applied to help displace hair and improve optical contact [4].
• Consider Specialized Hardware: "Brush optodes," which consist of loose bundles of individual optical fibers, can thread through hair much more effectively than conventional flat-faced fiber bundles. Research has shown that brush optodes can improve the activation signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by up to a factor of ten and significantly reduce setup times [19].
• Control Ambient Light: To prevent contamination from environmental light sources, turn off overhead lights (especially pulse-wave modulated LEDs) and use incandescent floor lamps. Placing an opaque, light-blocking shower cap over the fNIRS cap is a highly effective method to block stray light [4] [7].
• Incorporate Short-Separation Channels: Using short-distance channels (e.g., 8 mm) is considered a 'gold standard' for improving signal quality. These channels are primarily sensitive to the systemic physiological noise in the extracerebral layers. This signal can be measured and subsequently regressed out from the standard long-separation channels (e.g., 30 mm) that target the brain, thereby isolating the cerebral hemodynamic response more effectively [18].

Q4: What analytical methods can help correct for bias and noise in fNIRS data? Several post-processing techniques are available to mitigate the impact of noise and bias.

• Short-Channel Regression: Using a General Linear Model (GLM) to regress the components extracted from short-channel data (via Principal Component Analysis - PCA) from your long-channel data is a highly effective method for removing global systemic noise [18].
• Data Harmonization Techniques: When pooling data from multiple sites or scanners, methods like ComBat can be used to remove site-specific, non-biological variance (batch effects) while preserving biological signals of interest. This technique uses empirical Bayes to adjust for additive and multiplicative scanner effects across image-derived features [20] [21].
• Motion Artifact Correction: Algorithms such as Wavelet Filtering and Spline Interpolation are commonly used to filter out high-frequency spikes and baseline shifts caused by participant movement [7].

Quantitative Impact of Hair and Skin Characteristics on fNIRS Signals

Table 1: Factors Affecting fNIRS Signal Quality and Their Measured Impact

Factor	Measured Impact on fNIRS Signal	Key Finding
Hair Color	20-50% signal intensity reduction [7]	Darker hair (black, brown) absorbs more NIR light, significantly attenuating the signal.
Hair Density	Not quantified universally; problem increases with density [4] [19]	Higher density physically obstructs optode contact and scatters/absorbs light.
Skin Pigmentation	Significant signal quality reduction [4] [5]	Higher melanin index (darker skin) absorbs more NIR light, reducing cortical signal.
Brush Optode Use	Up to 10x improvement in SNR; 3x faster setup [19]	Specialized optodes that thread through hair dramatically improve signal and efficiency.

Experimental Protocol: Optimizing Cap and Optode Placement

The following detailed protocol, derived from current research, is designed to maximize signal quality and minimize bias [4].

• Cap Selection and Placement:

  • Select a cap size based on the participant's head circumference (e.g., 55 cm or 57 cm).
  • Position the cap on the head starting from the front and extending gently towards the back. This front-to-back direction helps prevent hair from falling forward and under the optodes.
  • Align the cap's Cz marker to be midway between the nasion and inion, and equidistant from ear-to-ear for consistent positioning.
  • Use a chin strap to secure the cap and minimize movement.

• Initial Optode-Scalp Coupling (Fast Capping):

  • Clean the forehead area with alcohol pads.
  • Perform a brief (less than 1 minute) initial optimization by making minor adjustments or 'wiggling' of the optodes to establish a preliminary coupling with the scalp. This is a rudimentary first step.

• Thorough Cap Adjustment (Proper Capping):

  • Use the real-time signal monitoring feature of your fNIRS acquisition software (e.g., NIRx's Aurora) to guide adjustments.
  • While the cap is on, use cotton-tipped applicators to meticulously push hair away from under the optodes.
  • For dense hair: If necessary, a small amount of ultrasound gel can be applied via an applicator directly under the optode. The optode may be temporarily removed from its grommet, gel applied to the grommet's center as hair is pushed aside, and the optode then replaced.

• Environmental Light Control:

  • Turn off overhead lights (which often have interfering LEDs).
  • Turn on incandescent floor lamps as a stable light source.
  • Place an opaque shower cap or other light-blocking cover over the entire fNIRS cap to block light from computer monitors and other ambient sources.

• Final Signal Verification:

  • Run your system's "Signal Optimization" function one final time to verify that optimal signal quality has been maintained after all adjustments.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for identifying key sources of bias and implementing targeted mitigation strategies to achieve more inclusive and reliable fNIRS datasets.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Materials for Improving fNIRS Signal Quality

Item	Function/Benefit	Application Note
NinjaCap (3D-printed)	A flexible, hexagonally-netted cap made from NinjaFlex material that accommodates optode arrays and conforms to various head shapes [4].	Provides a stable and adaptable platform for consistent optode placement across diverse populations.
Brush Optode Attachments	Bundles of loose optical fibers that thread through hair to achieve superior scalp contact compared to flat-faced optodes [19].	Can improve SNR by up to 10x and reduce setup time by a factor of 3, especially critical for participants with dense or dark hair.
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Essential tools for gently parting hair and moving it from under the optodes during the capping procedure [4].	Allows for precise hair management without causing participant discomfort.
Ultrasound Gel	A water-based gel used to displace hair under optodes and improve optical coupling between the optode and scalp [4].	Use sparingly and apply via applicator for difficult-to-manage hair.
Short-Separation Detectors	Optodes placed 8-15 mm from a source to selectively measure signals from the scalp and skull [18].	Their signals are used in post-processing (e.g., via GLM-PCA) to regress out systemic physiological noise from long-channel data.
Opaque Shower Cap	A simple, effective light-blocking cover placed over the fNIRS cap after setup [4] [7].	Mitigates signal contamination from ambient artificial light and computer screens.

Practical Strategies for Enhanced Signal Acquisition in Hair-Covered Regions

Technical Support Center: FAQs & Troubleshooting Guides

This technical support resource addresses common challenges researchers face when using High-Density (HD) multidistance fNIRS arrays, with a specific focus on applications in hair-covered regions. The guidance is framed within the broader goal of improving fNIRS signal quality for robust data collection.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the fundamental advantage of an HD multidistance array over a traditional sparse array for measuring brain activity through hair?

A1: Traditional sparse arrays (e.g., with a 30 mm channel spacing) suffer from limited spatial resolution and poor sensitivity, which is exacerbated in hair-covered regions due to increased signal attenuation and optode-scalp coupling issues [22] [23]. HD arrays use overlapping, multidistance channels to improve depth sensitivity and spatial resolution [22]. This design allows for better differentiation of cortical signals from confounding superficial (scalp) hemodynamics, leading to superior localization and detection of brain activity, even in challenging areas like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or motor cortex covered by hair [22].

Q2: Our research involves patients with thick hair. What specific setup challenges should we anticipate with an HD array, and how can we mitigate them?

A2: HD arrays present specific challenges in hair-covered regions:

• Increased Setup Time: The higher number of optodes requires more time for proper placement and signal optimization [22].
• Optode-Scalp Coupling: Consistent and stable coupling is difficult to achieve through hair, leading to potential motion artifacts and unreliable data [24].

Mitigation Strategies:

• Customized Helmets: Use 3D-printed or thermoplastic helmets customized to subject head shape. This ensures stable and reproducible optode placement across sessions, improving spatial specificity and coupling [24].
• Methodical Parting: Carefully part the hair to expose the scalp for each optode. Using a blunt tool and hair clips can help maintain clear paths.
• Liquid Gels: Utilize specialized optical gels that can flow through hair to improve light conduction between the optode and scalp.

Q3: How does the inclusion of short-separation channels in an HD setup benefit signal quality from hairy brain regions?

A3: Short-separation channels (typically < 15 mm) are primarily sensitive to systemic physiological noise originating from the scalp and skull [22] [23]. In hair-covered regions, the application pressure of the cap and underlying physiological noise can be significant. By recording this extracerebral signal, short-separation channels enable its regression from the long-distance channels (sensitive to both brain and scalp) during data processing. This critically improves the specificity of the fNIRS signal to cerebral brain activity [22].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Poor Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) in Initial Data from an HD Array.

• Check Optode-Scalp Coupling: Verify that all sources and detectors have good contact with the scalp. Use real-time signal quality metrics provided by your acquisition software to identify and re-seat problematic optodes.
• Confirm Short-Separation Registration: Ensure that short-separation channels are correctly registered and included in your preprocessing pipeline to remove systemic physiological artifacts [22].
• Inspect for Hair Obstruction: Re-check that hair is not obstructing the light path for any optode.

Problem: Inconsistent Results Across Sessions with the Same Subject.

• Verify Probe Placement Reproducibility: Inconsistent optode placement is a major source of variability. Use a customized helmet [24] or precise anatomical measurements (e.g., using the 10-20 system) to ensure the cap is placed in the same position every time.
• Standardize Preprocessing: Ensure identical data processing steps and parameters are used across all sessions, particularly for short-separation regression and motion artifact correction [25] [6].

Performance Data: HD vs. Sparse Arrays

The following table summarizes quantitative improvements offered by HD arrays, as demonstrated in comparative studies using tasks like the Word-Color Stroop test [22] [23].

Table 1: Statistical Comparison of Sparse vs. HD fNIRS Array Performance

Performance Metric	Sparse Array (30mm grid)	High-Density (HD) Multidistance Array	Key Implications
Spatial Resolution & Localization	Limited; poor ability to differentiate adjacent brain regions [22].	Superior; provides greatly improved localization of functional activity [22] [23].	Essential for mapping precise regions of interest in connectivity studies or targeted neurofeedback.
Sensitivity to Cognitive Load	Can detect activation only during high cognitive load tasks (e.g., incongruent Stroop) [22].	Detects and localizes brain activity across both low and high cognitive load tasks [22].	More suitable for a wider range of experimental paradigms and clinical applications.
Inter-subject Consistency	Lower reproducibility due to non-uniform spatial sensitivity [22] [23].	Improved inter-subject localization consistency [22].	Increases statistical power and reliability in group-level studies.
Amplitude of Hemodynamic Response	Lower measured amplitude [23].	Higher amplitude of hemodynamic response (HRF) in both channel and image space [23].	Leads to stronger effect sizes and more robust statistical findings.

Table 2: Technical and Practical Trade-offs in Array Selection

Characteristic	Sparse Array	HD Multidistance Array
Optode/Channel Count	Lower	Higher
Setup Time & Complexity	Lower [22]	Higher [22]
Data Processing Demands	Lower	Higher (requires image reconstruction) [22]
Equipment Cost	Lower [22]	Higher
Ideal Application	Detecting presence/absence of activation in a broad region.	Precise localization, differentiating adjacent regions, and studying low-load tasks.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Comparing Array Performance

This protocol is adapted from studies that statistically compared HD and sparse array performance during a Word-Color Stroop (WCS) task [22] [23].

1. Objective: To quantitatively compare the sensitivity and localization capabilities of a sparse fNIRS array versus an HD multidistance array in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC).

2. Materials:

• fNIRS system capable of supporting both sparse and HD probe configurations.
• Two probe sets: (1) A sparse grid (e.g., 3x3 pattern, 30mm spacing), (2) An HD hexagonal-pattern probe with multiple source-detector distances (e.g., including short-separation channels <15mm).
• A computer for running the WCS task paradigm.

3. Participant Setup:

• Recruit healthy adult participants.
• After obtaining consent, position the fNIRS probes over the dlPFC. The field-of-view for both sparse and HD arrays should be matched as closely as possible.
• For the HD array, ensure meticulous optode placement through hair, using parting and gel to maximize coupling. A customized helmet is recommended for reproducibility [24].

4. Experimental Paradigm (Word-Color Stroop Task):

• Use a block design with two conditions: Congruent (the word "BLUE" written in blue ink) and Incongruent (the word "BLUE" written in red ink).
• Each block lasts 20 seconds, followed by a 30-second rest period. Repeat each condition 5-10 times.
• Participants are instructed to name the ink color of the word as quickly and accurately as possible.

5. Data Acquisition & Analysis:

• Collect continuous fNIRS data at a sampling rate of ~10 Hz.
• Preprocessing: For both datasets, apply standard pipeline: conversion to optical density, channel pruning, and band-pass filtering. Critically, for the HD data, use the short-separation channels to regress out the superficial signal [22].
• Image Reconstruction: Reconstruct the HD data into image space using a forward model and inverse solution (e.g., diffuse optical tomography).
• Statistical Comparison: For each subject and condition, generate statistical maps (e.g., t-statistics) for both channel-wise sparse data and vertex-wise HD image data. Compare groups based on the strength and spatial extent of activation.

Experimental Workflow and Signaling Pathway

The diagram below illustrates the logical workflow for an experiment comparing HD and sparse fNIRS arrays, culminating in the key finding of superior localization with the HD array.

This diagram outlines the signaling pathway that explains the core advantage of an HD multidistance array: its ability to separate cerebral from extracerebral signals.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Materials for HD-fNIRS Research in Hair-Covered Regions

Item	Function & Importance
HD-fNIRS System	A core system with sufficient channel capacity and integrated short-separation capability. Enables the acquisition of high-quality, spatially resolved brain data [22].
Customized 3D-Printed Helmet	Ensures precise, stable, and reproducible optode placement on head, crucial for longitudinal studies and improving inter-subject consistency [24].
Optical Gel	Improves light conduction between the optode and scalp, mitigating signal loss caused by hair and irregularities in the skin surface.
Blunt Parting Tools & Clips	Essential for gently moving hair aside to create a clear path for optodes to make contact with the scalp.
Data Processing Software	Software capable of handling high-density data, performing short-separation regression, and reconstructing images via Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT) [22].

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) has emerged as a powerful neuroimaging tool that offers a unique balance of mobility, cost-effectiveness, and moderate spatial resolution, making it particularly valuable for studying brain function in naturalistic settings and across diverse populations [26] [25]. Despite these advantages, fNIRS signal quality remains critically dependent on achieving and maintaining optimal optode-scalp coupling—the interface between optical sensors and the scalp through which near-infrared light must travel [27] [4]. This challenge becomes particularly pronounced in hair-covered regions of the scalp, where hair can obstruct light passage and impede direct contact between optodes and skin [4] [7].

The optical nature of fNIRS measurements makes signal quality susceptible to various biophysical factors, with hair and skin characteristics significantly impacting the absorption and scattering of near-infrared light [4] [8]. Darker hair and higher skin pigmentation absorb more light, while dense hair can interfere with proper optode placement and scalp contact [4] [7]. These factors collectively risk biasing fNIRS research by disproportionately affecting signal quality across diverse populations, potentially excluding individuals with certain hair types or skin tones from study participation [4]. Within the context of a broader thesis on improving fNIRS signal quality in hair-covered regions, this technical support center provides targeted troubleshooting guides, frequently asked questions, and evidence-based recommendations to help researchers overcome these critical challenges. By addressing methodological hurdles in probe design and cap configuration, we aim to foster more inclusive and methodologically robust fNIRS research practices.

Quantitative Impact of Hair and Skin Characteristics on fNIRS Signals

Understanding how specific hair and skin characteristics affect fNIRS signal quality is essential for designing inclusive studies and accurately interpreting data. Recent research has quantified these impacts, providing evidence-based guidance for researchers.

Table 1: Quantitative Impact of Hair and Skin Characteristics on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Impact on Signal Quality	Magnitude of Effect	Recommended Mitigation Strategies
Hair Color	Darker colors (black/brown) reduce signal intensity	20-50% signal reduction [7]	Ensure thorough hair parting; use ample gel
Hair Density	Higher density increases signal loss and positioning instability [7]	Variable based on density [4]	Extended capping time; specialized optode designs
Skin Pigmentation	Higher melanin index increases light absorption [4]	Significant effect, particularly on forehead [4]	Optimize source power; ensure perfect coupling
Hair Type	Curly/kinky hair presents greater coupling challenges [4]	Quantitative effect observed [4]	Advanced hair management techniques
Scalp Cleanliness	Oily residues may interfere with optical contact [7]	Preliminary evidence of effect [7]	Clean scalp prior to application

Table 2: Impact of Head Physiology on fNIRS Signal Quality

Physiological Factor	Relationship with Signal Quality	Evidence Level
Head Size	Significant impact, particularly on forehead and sides of head [4]	Strong [4]
Sex	Significant relationship observed [4]	Strong [4]
Age	Significant relationship observed [4]	Strong [4]

These quantitative relationships highlight the importance of considering participant characteristics during study design and implementation. Researchers should document these variables systematically using standardized metadata tables to enable proper interpretation of results and facilitate meta-analyses across diverse populations [4].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common fNIRS Optode Coupling Challenges

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the most effective technique for placing optodes on participants with thick, dark hair?

Achieving good optode-scalp coupling through thick, dark hair requires a systematic approach. Begin by using a non-abrasive tool to part the hair underneath each optode, creating a clear path to the scalp [27]. For challenging cases, consider using ultrasound gel applied via cotton-tipped applicator directly under the optode [4]. The process may require temporarily removing the optode from its grommet, applying gel to the grommet center while pushing hair aside circularly, and then replacing the optode [4]. Additionally, implement real-time coupling verification using tools like PHOEBE (Placing Headgear Optodes Efficiently Before Experimentation), which provides visual feedback on coupling status by analyzing signal quality metrics related to cardiac pulsations [27]. This approach can shorten setup time by visually identifying which optodes require adjustment.

Q2: How can I consistently target specific brain regions across multiple sessions or participants?

Consistent spatial targeting requires a combination of standardized positioning systems and light propagation modeling. Utilize the international 10-10 or 10-5 systems as reference frameworks for optode placement [28] [29]. For enhanced precision, employ the fNIRS Optodes' Location Decider (fOLD) toolbox, which automatically determines optimal optode locations based on photon transport simulations and predefined brain regions-of-interest [28]. For the highest accuracy in patient-specific studies, consider neuronavigation-guided optode placement coupled with sensitivity-based matching methods that account for light scattering and individual anatomical variations [30] [31]. These approaches significantly improve scalp-cortex correlation compared to traditional geometrical methods alone [30].

Q3: What strategies can minimize motion artifacts while maintaining participant comfort during prolonged recordings?

For extended recordings, collodion adhesive provides superior optode stability while maintaining good optical coupling for several hours [31]. Although collodion requires proper ventilation, it enables investigation of virtually any participant regardless of hair characteristics, as hair can be removed from the optode tip during application [31]. Complement this with stable cap designs that distribute pressure evenly, and use chin straps to prevent cap slippage [4]. For motion management, implement real-time motion artifact detection algorithms and consider wavelet-based filtering techniques during data processing to mitigate movement-related noise [25].

Q4: How does ambient light affect fNIRS signals, and what precautions are most effective?

Environmental light can contaminate fNIRS signals, particularly when optode-scalp coupling is suboptimal [7]. The most effective mitigation strategy involves conducting measurements in darkened rooms or using opaque materials to cover the fNIRS cap [4] [7]. Practical implementations include turning off pulse-wave modulated LED overhead lights, using incandescent floor lamps instead, and placing an opaque shower cap over the fNIRS assembly to block external light sources [4]. These measures are particularly important for studies involving participants with hair characteristics that challenge perfect optode coupling.

Q5: What metrics should I use to verify adequate signal quality before beginning experimental protocols?

The Scalp Coupling Index (SCI) provides an objective measure of signal quality by quantifying the prominence of the cardiac waveform in the fNIRS signal [27]. This metric leverages the fact that clear detection of cardiac pulsations indicates effective optode-scalp coupling. Additionally, monitor raw light intensity levels and amplifier gain settings provided by most fNIRS systems [27]. For comprehensive assessment, implement a channel-level qualitative indicator that combines multiple signal quality metrics, and establish predefined thresholds for acceptable signal quality before proceeding with experimental protocols [27] [4].

Workflow for Optimal Cap Placement and Signal Optimization

The following diagram illustrates a systematic workflow for achieving optimal optode-scalp coupling, particularly in challenging hair-covered regions:

Diagram 1: Workflow for optimal fNIRS cap placement and signal optimization. This systematic approach ensures consistent signal quality across participants with varying hair characteristics.

Experimental Protocols for Enhanced Optode-Scalp Coupling

Standardized Cap Placement Protocol

Based on best practices identified in recent studies, the following step-by-step protocol ensures consistent optode-scalp coupling:

• Cap Selection: Choose an appropriately sized cap (e.g., 55 cm or 57 cm) based on head circumference measurements [4].
• Initial Placement: Position the cap starting with the front section and gently extending toward the back of the head. This front-to-back placement directionality prevents hair from falling forward under the optodes [4].
• Landmark Alignment: Align the Cz marker on the cap midway between the nasion and inion, and equidistant from ear-to-ear for consistent positioning [4].
• Stabilization: Secure a chin strap to stabilize the cap and prevent movement during data collection [4].
• Cable Management: Use Velcro attachments on the chair to secure splitter boxes of optode bundles, and employ adjustable cable management arms to prevent strain and reduce pressure on the participant's head [4].

Hair Management and Signal Optimization Protocol

For participants with challenging hair characteristics, implement this detailed optimization procedure:

• Fast Capping (Preliminary Adjustment): Perform brief initial optode-scalp coupling optimization (<1 minute) involving minor adjustments or 'wiggling' of optodes to establish preliminary coupling [4].
• Initial Signal Assessment: Run acquisition software signal optimization functions to establish baseline signal quality [4].
• Proper Capping (Comprehensive Adjustment): Conduct thorough adjustments of the cap and hair guided by continuous monitoring features in acquisition software [4].
• Scalp-Coupling Enhancement: While the cap is in place, use cotton-tipped applicators to push hair from under optodes to the side. As needed, apply small amounts of ultrasound gel directly under problematic optodes using the temporary removal technique described in Section 3.1 [4].
• Real-time Verification: Utilize real-time coupling status tools like PHOEBE to identify specific optodes requiring additional adjustment, significantly reducing setup time [27].

Region-of-Interest Targeting Protocol

For studies requiring precise targeting of specific brain regions:

• Define Target Regions: Identify cortical regions of interest based on research hypotheses and existing literature [28].
• Optode Position Optimization: Use the fOLD toolbox to determine optimal optode positions based on photon transport simulations from standard head atlases [28]. For the highest precision, employ patient-specific optimal montage methodology that formulates optode positioning as a mixed linear integer programming problem under functional constraints [31].
• Guided Placement: For patient-specific studies, use a 3D neuronavigation device to guide exact optode placement on predetermined scalp positions [31].
• Sensitivity Verification: Calculate sensitivity-based matching that incorporates the broad spatial sensitivity of probe pairs due to light scattering, providing more accurate scalp-cortex correlation than geometrical methods alone [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials for Optimal fNIRS Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for fNIRS Experiments

Item	Function/Application	Usage Notes
NinjaCap (3D-printed)	Hexagonally netted cap made from flexible NinjaFlex material [4]	Provides stable optode placement; accommodates various head sizes
Ultrasound Gel	Enhances optical coupling between optode and scalp [4]	Apply sparingly directly under optode using cotton-tipped applicator
Collodion Adhesive	Water-resistant adhesive for prolonged optode fixation [31]	Requires proper ventilation; enables 6+ hours of stable recording
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Hair management and gel application [4]	Essential for parting hair and precise gel placement
3D Neuronavigation System	Guides precise optode placement for patient-specific studies [31]	Critical for optimal montage methodology
Opaque Shower Cap	Blocks ambient light interference [4]	Place over fNIRS cap after optimization
Chin Strap	Stabilizes cap position during movement [4]	Reduces motion-related artifacts
PHOEBE Software	Real-time optode coupling assessment [27]	Provides visual feedback on coupling status
fOLD Toolbox	Determines optimal optode placement for brain regions-of-interest [28]	Based on photon transport simulations
Alcohol Pads	Cleans forehead and hairless regions [4]	Improves skin contact for reference optodes

Achieving optimal optode-scalp coupling in hair-covered regions remains a methodological challenge that directly impacts signal quality, data interpretation, and the inclusivity of fNIRS research. By implementing the systematic approaches, troubleshooting guidelines, and standardized protocols outlined in this technical support center, researchers can significantly improve the reliability and reproducibility of their fNIRS investigations. The evidence-based recommendations provided here—from quantitative assessments of hair and skin impacts to practical hair management techniques and advanced targeting methods—collectively contribute to overcoming the critical barriers associated with probe design and cap configuration. As the fNIRS community continues to develop more inclusive technologies and standardized reporting practices, these guidelines will help ensure that fNIRS reaches its full potential as a versatile neuroimaging tool accessible to diverse populations across both laboratory and real-world settings.

Technical Support Center

Troubleshooting Guides & FAQs

This section addresses common challenges researchers face when working with textured and thick hair types in fNIRS studies, providing evidence-based solutions to improve data quality and promote inclusivity.

FAQ 1: Why is fNIRS signal quality particularly challenging with textured and thick hair?

fNIRS signals are significantly affected by hair that acts as a physical barrier between optodes and the scalp. Challenges include:

• Physical Barriers: Dense, voluminous hair prevents proper optode-scalp contact. [32]
• Optical Interference: Darker, dense hair pigments and structures scatter and absorb near-infrared light, reducing signal-to-noise ratio. [32] [33]
• Systemic Exclusion: Historical exclusion of hair types beyond Andre Walker types 1A-1B (straight, low-volume hair) has created phenotypical biases in neuroscience research and limited methodological development for diverse populations. [32]

FAQ 2: What practical techniques can improve optode-scalp contact for textured hair?

Research demonstrates several effective braiding and styling techniques:

• Center-Part Braiding: Create a middle part, then braid from the center of the scalp down toward the ears to create clear paths for optodes. [33]
• Cornrows: When braiding cornrows, use different patterns to strategically avoid optode placement locations on the cap. [33]
• Slicking Techniques: For shorter hair that cannot be braided, use appropriate gels and edge control products to slick hair up and away from the scalp. [33]
• Customized Approaches: Adapt techniques to individual hair types, including dreadlocks and shorter styles, recognizing that no single solution works for all hair types. [33]

FAQ 3: How do participant characteristics affect fNIRS data quality?

Recent evidence indicates that data quality varies systematically with demographic factors:

• Documented Disparities: fNIRS signals are generally worse for Black women compared to Black men and White individuals regardless of gender. [5]
• Task-Specific Effects: Data quality metrics (scalp-coupling indices, peak spectral power values, and number of bad channels) vary by task type, with Picture Naming producing significantly lower quality than Resting State or Discourse Comprehension tasks. [5]
• Equity Imperative: These findings reinforce the need to improve hardware and methodologies to ensure equity in fNIRS research. [5]

FAQ 4: What broader study design considerations support inclusivity?

Beyond technical adaptations, study design choices significantly impact participation:

• Flexible Scheduling: Offer sessions outside typical business hours (Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm) to accommodate participants' work schedules. [32]
• Childcare Support: Address conflicts with childcare and/or eldercare responsibilities that disproportionately affect women's participation. [32]
• Community Engagement: Utilize Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approaches by partnering with community advisory boards to identify and address participation barriers. [32]

Table 1: Impact of Inclusive Braiding Techniques on Study Success Metrics

Technique	Application Context	Success Metrics	Implementation Notes
Center-Part Braiding	Medium to long hair	Creates clear optode paths; 100% retention in implemented studies [32] [33]	Requires braiding proficiency
Cornrow Patterning	Dense, textured hair	Avoids optode placement; enables signal acquisition [33]	Pattern must be adapted to cap layout
Slicking with Gel	Short hair, dreadlocks	Enables participation of diverse hairstyles [33]	Use appropriate hair products
Modular Approach	All hair types	Adaptable to individual needs [33]	Requires multiple technique proficiency

Table 2: fNIRS Data Quality Metrics Across Participant Demographics

Demographic Group	Scalp-Coupling Index	Spectral Power	Bad Channels	Key Findings
Black Women	Significantly lower	Reduced	Higher count	Worst signal quality across metrics [5]
Black Men	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Better signals than Black women [5]
White Individuals	Higher	Higher	Lower	Best signal quality regardless of gender [5]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials

Table 3: Key Materials for Inclusive fNIRS Research

Material	Function	Application Notes
Wide-Tooth Combs	Detangling without hair damage	Essential preparation before braiding
Edge Control & Gel	Slicking shorter hair away from scalp	Creates optode-scalp contact paths [33]
Hair Clips & Sectioning Tools	Managing hair during braiding	Enables precise braiding patterns
Hair Dryer with Diffuser	Gentle drying for curly hair	Maintains hair health during styling
Variety of Braiding Elastics	Securing braids of different sizes	Prevents hair damage during studies

Experimental Workflows

Inclusive fNIRS Research Workflow

Challenge-Solution Framework for Textured Hair

Why are short-separation channels (SSCs) critical for modern fNIRS studies?

Short-separation channels are critical because they are intentionally placed close to a light source (typically 8-15 mm) to predominantly capture hemodynamic changes from the superficial layers of the head, such as the skin and skull [34]. fNIRS signals measured at standard long-separation channels (∼30 mm) contain a mixture of hemodynamic activity from both the brain and these superficial tissues. Systemic physiological noise (e.g., from blood pressure changes, respiration) affects the entire head, and this superficial "noise" can mimic or mask true task-evoked brain activity [34] [35]. By regressing the SSC signal out of the long-separation channel signal, researchers can isolate the neuronal-related hemodynamic response originating from the brain, significantly improving the accuracy and reliability of fNIRS data [34].

How do hair characteristics impact fNIRS signal quality and the use of SSCs?

Hair presents a dual challenge for fNIRS. Firstly, dense and dark hair absorbs and scatters more near-infrared light, reducing the amount of light that reaches the brain and returns to the detector, thereby degrading the signal-to-noise ratio [4] [8]. Secondly, hair can cause poor optode-scalp coupling, which is a primary cause of motion artifacts [36]. These issues affect all channels but can be particularly detrimental for SSCs, which must maintain excellent contact with the scalp to accurately sample the superficial signal. If the SSC signal is corrupted, its utility as a regressor is compromised.

Table: Impact of Biophysical Factors on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Impact on Signal Quality	Recommendation for Improvement
Dense/Dark Hair	Increases light absorption, reducing signal strength [4].	Use hair management techniques (e.g., parting hair with cotton applicators) and ensure ample gel [4].
High Skin Pigmentation	Increases light absorption, potentially reducing signal strength [4].	Ensure optimal optode contact and use inclusive hardware designs [4].
Poor Optode-Scalp Coupling	Major source of motion artifacts and signal loss [36].	Perform thorough cap adjustment and use chin straps for stabilization [4].

What is the best method to select a regressor from multiple short-separation channels?

The optimal approach is to use a heterogeneous model that combines information from multiple SSCs, rather than assuming a single, globally homogeneous scalp signal [34]. Research shows that scalp hemodynamics, while having a global component, also exhibit significant spatial heterogeneity [34].

Table: Comparison of SSC Regressor Selection Approaches

Approach	Underlying Assumption	Methodology	Effectiveness
Single Global Regressor	Scalp hemodynamics are spatially homogeneous [34].	Use the signal from one SSC to regress noise from all long-separation channels.	Less effective, can leave residual noise or distort the brain signal [34].
Local / Heterogeneous Regressor	Scalp hemodynamics vary spatially across the head [34].	Use the signal from the nearest SSC or a combination of local SSCs to regress noise from a specific long-separation channel.	More effective at removing local systemic noise and recovering the hemodynamic response [34].
Advanced Heterogeneous Model	Scalp hemodynamics are heterogeneous and contain frequency-specific information [34].	Combine multiple SSCs and separately model specific oscillations like Mayer waves (~0.1 Hz).	Most effective, as it accounts for both spatial and temporal specificities of physiological noise [34].

Troubleshooting: My signal quality is poor after SSC regression. What could be wrong?

Problem	Potential Causes	Solutions
High Amplitude Noise After Regression	1. The SSC itself is corrupted by motion artifacts or poor contact.2. The SSC signal is too weak (low SNR).	1. Apply motion correction (e.g., wavelet-based filters) to the SSC signal before using it as a regressor [35] [36].2. Check SSC signal quality during data collection using metrics like the presence of a cardiac pulsation [35].
Signal is Over-corrected / Damped	The regression model is too aggressive, removing neural-related signal along with noise.	In the General Linear Model (GLM), review the regularization parameters or the weight given to the SSC regressor. A less aggressive fit may be needed.
No Improvement in Functional Contrast	1. The SSC and long-separation channel are too far apart, capturing different noise topographies [34].2. The coregistration of channels is incorrect.	1. Ensure the SSC used for regression is physically close to the long-separation channel it is correcting [34].2. Verify channel placement and positioning during experimental setup.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table: Key Materials for fNIRS Experiments with SSCs

Item	Function & Importance
fNIRS System with SSC Capability	Hardware must support the connection and recording of multiple short-separation detectors (e.g., 8 mm) in addition to standard long-separation channels (30 mm) [34].
3D-Printed Flexible Caps (e.g., NinjaCap)	Customizable, flexible caps improve fit and comfort, which is crucial for stable optode placement, especially in hair-covered regions [4].
Chin Strap	Stabilizes the cap to reduce movement and prevent optode slippage, a common source of motion artifacts [4].
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Essential for parting hair and moving it away from under the optodes to improve light transmission and optode-scalp coupling [4].
Ultrasound Gel	Optical coupling medium. Using ample gel is critical for ensuring good light conduction between the optode and scalp, particularly where hair is present [4].
Melanometer / Trichoscopy Imaging	For quantifying skin pigmentation (Melanin Index) and hair characteristics (density, type) as part of metadata collection to control for these variables [4].
Accelerometers	Auxiliary sensors integrated into the fNIRS system can provide a direct measure of head movement, which can be used in advanced motion artifact correction algorithms [36].

Experimental Protocol: Implementing SSC Regression

The following workflow outlines a robust methodology for data collection and processing that leverages short-separation channels, based on established protocols [4] [34].

Understanding the Regression Logic in a GLM Framework

The following diagram illustrates the core concept of how a short-separation channel signal is used within a General Linear Model (GLM) to isolate brain activity in a long-separation channel.

Troubleshooting Common fNIRS Signal Quality Issues and Optimization Protocols

For researchers conducting fNIRS studies, ensuring optimal signal quality before data collection begins is paramount, particularly when working with hair-covered regions of the scalp. Variations in signal quality can significantly impact the reliability and reproducibility of findings [26]. This guide provides a systematic approach to pre-testing procedures, focusing on the unique challenges posed by hair characteristics, skin pigmentation, and proper optode placement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why is signal quality particularly challenging in hair-covered regions? A: Hair significantly impacts light transmission in fNIRS measurements. Dense or dark hair absorbs more near-infrared light, reducing the amount that penetrates to the brain and returns to detectors [4]. This optical interference can decrease signal-to-noise ratio and potentially bias studies if not properly addressed across diverse populations.

Q: What quantitative metrics can I use to assess signal quality before main data collection? A: The Scalp Coupling Index (SCI) provides an objective measure of signal quality by quantifying the prominence of the cardiac waveform in the fNIRS signal [27]. Software tools like PHOEBE can compute this in real-time and visually display which optodes require adjustment [27].

Q: How much improvement in signal quality can proper capping techniques provide? A: Research demonstrates that thorough cap adjustment and hair management can significantly improve signal quality compared to quick placement. One study collected resting-state data after both "fast capping" and "proper capping" procedures, finding measurable signal improvements after the thorough optimization [4].

Q: What are the most effective methods for managing motion artifacts during setup? A: Motion artifacts remain a significant challenge that can be minimized through proper initial setup. While numerous algorithmic solutions exist for post-processing motion correction [37], ensuring optimal optode-scalp coupling from the beginning reduces the introduction of motion-related noise, particularly from head movements, facial muscle activity, and jaw movements [37].

Quantitative Signal Quality Assessment

Table 1: Factors Affecting fNIRS Signal Quality and Optimization Strategies

Factor	Impact on Signal Quality	Quantitative Assessment Method	Optimization Strategy
Hair Characteristics	Density and darkness increase light absorption [4]	Visual inspection; signal amplitude monitoring	Hair parting techniques; use of applicators to move hair from under optodes [4]
Skin Pigmentation	Higher melanin index increases light absorption [4]	Melanometer measurement	Ensure consistent cap pressure; optimize light intensity settings
Optode-Scalp Coupling	Poor coupling introduces noise and signal loss [27]	Scalp Coupling Index (SCI) [27]	Real-time adjustment using visual feedback systems
Head Movement	Causes motion artifacts that distort hemodynamic response [37]	Accelerometer data; visual inspection of raw signal	Secure cap placement with chin strap; stabilize cables [4]

Table 2: Comparison of fNIRS Array Configurations for Hair-Covered Regions

Array Type	Spatial Resolution	Sensitivity to Cortical Activity	Setup Complexity	Recommended Use Cases
Sparse Array (30mm channel spacing)	Limited	Lower, especially for lower cognitive load tasks [22]	Lower	Broad field-of-view activation detection
High-Density Array (Overlapping, multidistance channels)	Improved localization [22]	Superior detection and localization [22]	Higher (more optodes, longer setup)	Precise spatial mapping; connectivity analysis

Experimental Protocols for Signal Optimization

Protocol 1: Systematic Cap Placement and Hair Management

• Initial Placement: Begin with the front of the cap and extend toward the back to prevent hair from falling forward under optodes [4]
• Anatomical Landmark Alignment: Position the Cz marker midway between nasion and inion, and equidistant from ear-to-ear for consistent placement [4]
• Cable Management: Use adjustable arms to hold wires and prevent strain on the cap [4]
• Stabilization: Secure with a chin strap to minimize movement during data collection [4]
• Hair Management: Use cotton-tipped applicators to push hair from under optodes; apply ultrasound gel sparingly if needed to improve contact [4]

Protocol 2: Real-Time Signal Quality Optimization Using PHOEBE

• System Setup: Load fNIRS geometric layout into PHOEBE software and initiate data acquisition [27]
• Signal Monitoring: Observe real-time computation of channel-specific SNR values [27]
• Optode Adjustment: Use the visual display of optode coupling status on the head model to identify and adjust problematic optodes [27]
• Validation: Confirm improved SCI values across all channels before beginning experimental tasks [27]

Protocol 3: Pre-Testing Signal Quality Verification

• Resting-State Baseline: Collect 2-3 minutes of resting-state data after initial cap placement [4]
• Cardiac Signal Verification: Check for clear pulsatile cardiac waveform in the fNIRS signal at each channel [27]
• SCI Threshold Application: Establish and apply minimum SCI values for channel inclusion based on your specific instrumentation [27]
• Systemic Noise Assessment: Identify channels with excessive physiological noise from scalp blood flow using short-separation channels where available [38]

Workflow Visualization

Systematic fNIRS Signal Quality Workflow

Cap Placement and Hair Management Procedure

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials for fNIRS Signal Quality

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for fNIRS Signal Optimization

Item	Function	Application Notes
NinjaCap (3D-printed flexible cap)	Secure optode placement; accommodates various head sizes [4]	Hexagonally netted design from NinjaFlex material improves stability during movement
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Hair parting and management under optodes [4]	Gentle parting minimizes participant discomfort while improving optode-scalp contact
Ultrasound Gel	Optical coupling medium	Use sparingly; apply directly to grommet center after hair parting [4]
PHOEBE Software	Real-time optode coupling assessment [27]	Provides visual feedback on individual optode status; compatible with NIRx systems
Short-Separation Detectors (8mm)	Regression of superficial physiological noise [22]	Place approximately 8mm from sources to capture scalp hemodynamics
Alcohol Pads	Forehead cleaning	Improves skin contact for frontal optodes [4]
Chin Strap	Cap stabilization	Reduces movement artifacts during data collection [4]
Melanometer	Skin pigmentation quantification	Objective measurement of melanin index for study documentation [4]

Mitigating Motion Artifacts and Systemic Noise in Real-Time Applications

Troubleshooting Guides

Motion Artifact (MA) Removal

Problem: My real-time fNIRS data from hair-covered regions shows frequent spikes and baseline shifts during participant movement.

Solution: Implement a multi-stage motion artifact correction pipeline combining hardware and algorithmic solutions.

• Step 1: Prevention and Monitoring Ensure a snug optode cap fit to minimize movement. For real-time applications, integrate an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or accelerometer to provide a reference signal for motion [36].
• Step 2: Algorithm Selection for Real-Time Processing Choose an algorithm suitable for low-latency processing. A Denoising Autoencoder (DAE) trained on an extensive fNIRS dataset can be highly effective. It uses a sliding window strategy to process data in real-time, correcting MAs across all channels simultaneously with low latency [39].
• Step 3: Signal Processing Apply the selected correction algorithm. The DAE model, for instance, takes a short segment of raw optical density or hemoglobin data as input and outputs the cleaned signal, preserving the underlying hemodynamic response [39].

Experimental Protocol for Validating MA Correction: A recent study characterized MAs using ground-truth movement information. Participants performed controlled head movements (e.g., nodding, shaking) while being recorded with a video system analyzed by a deep neural network (SynergyNet) to compute precise head orientation angles. This allows for direct correlation between specific movement parameters (amplitude, speed) and artifact features in the fNIRS signal, providing a robust framework for testing correction algorithms [40].

Suppressing Systemic Physiological Noise

Problem: I suspect that systemic physiology (heartbeat, blood pressure waves) is contaminating my cerebral fNIRS signals in resting-state or task-based studies.

Solution: Implement Systemic Physiology Augmented fNIRS (SPA-fNIRS).

• Step 1: Acquire Auxiliary Physiological Measurements Simultaneously record physiological data alongside fNIRS. Essential signals include:
  • Heart Rate: Use an electrocardiogram (ECG) or photoplethysmogram (PPG).
  • Respiration: Use a respiratory effort transducer.
  • Blood Pressure: If possible, use continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring [41].
• Step 2: Integrate Signals and Perform Regression Synchronize the fNIRS and physiological data. In your general linear model (GLM), include the recorded physiological signals (e.g., heart rate, respiration) as regressors of no interest. This statistically removes the variance in the fNIRS signal associated with systemic fluctuations, leaving a cleaner estimate of the cerebral activity [41].

Experimental Protocol for SPA-fNIRS: In a study on movement control, researchers measured oxygenation in the prefrontal and motor cortices with fNIRS while simultaneously recording heart rate and respiration signals with a data acquisition system. All signals were synchronized and analyzed in software, allowing the team to identify and regress out systemic influences like heartbeat and breathing rhythms from the fNIRS data [41].

Dealing with Poor Signal Quality in Hair-Covered Regions

Problem: Signal quality is consistently poor in regions with dense or dark hair, leading to low signal-to-noise ratio and frequent channel rejection.

Solution: Optimize optode-scalp coupling and data collection strategies.

• Step 1: Pre-Data Collection Preparation
  • Hair Management: Part the hair thoroughly using the end of a blunt tool or comb. Using a conductive gel (as in EEG) can also improve optical contact [8] [42].
  • Optode Choice: Consider using optodes with longer springs or higher clamping force to ensure better contact through the hair layer.
• Step 2: Real-Time Monitoring Closely monitor signal quality metrics during data acquisition. Key metrics include the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), calculated as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of the light intensity, and the presence of saturation [39]. Re-adjust optodes in channels showing persistently low SNR.
• Step 3: Data-Driven Solutions If physical short-channel measurements are unavailable due to hair obstruction, employ a virtual short-channel regression approach. A transformer-based deep learning model can predict the superficial (extracerebral) signal component from your long-separation channels, providing a data-driven regressor for noise removal [43].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the most effective method for removing motion artifacts in real-time fNIRS-BCI applications? For real-time BCI, a deep-learning-based denoising autoencoder (DAE) is highly effective. It outperforms traditional methods like wavelet filtering or principal component analysis in terms of mean squared error and correlation to clean data while maintaining the low latency required for real-time feedback. This method has been validated to process up to 750 channels simultaneously in real-time [39].

Q2: How can I perform short-channel regression without physical short-separation detectors? A transformer-based deep learning model can predict short-separation optical density signals from long-separation channels. This model, trained on paired short- and long-channel data, reconstructs the extracerebral hemodynamic component. The predicted "virtual" signals can then be used for regression, effectively denoising the long-channel data. This approach has shown high correspondence with ground-truth measurements (median correlation r = 0.70) [43].

Q3: Why is SPA-fNIRS superior to standard filtering for removing physiological noise? Standard band-pass filtering can remove signal components outside a specific frequency band but cannot separate cerebral from extracerebral signals that share the same spectral properties. SPA-fNIRS actively measures the confounding systemic physiology (e.g., heart rate, respiration) and uses these measurements to model and subtract their specific influence from the fNIRS signal, leading to a more specific recovery of cerebral activity [41].

Q4: What are the best practices for ensuring good signal quality in participants with thick, dark, or curly hair?

• Preparation: Invest significant time in parting hair and ensuring direct optode-scalp contact. Use gel if necessary [8] [42].
• Cap Design: Use caps designed for high hair density. Ensure the cap is secure and snug to prevent slippage.
• Signal Quality Control: Systematically report participant hair and skin characteristics as part of your study metadata. This helps in identifying and controlling for these sources of bias [8] [42].
• Channel Rejection: Implement a rigorous, standardized channel rejection protocol based on SNR and other quality metrics before analysis [38].

Data Presentation

Table 1: Comparison of Motion Artifact Correction Techniques

Method	Principle	Best For	Advantages	Limitations
Accelerometer-Based (ABAMAR) [36]	Uses accelerometer data as a noise reference for adaptive filtering.	Real-time applications where auxiliary hardware is available.	Direct measure of motion; feasible for real-time.	Requires additional hardware; may not capture all artifact types.
Denoising Autoencoder (DAE) [39]	Deep learning model trained to map noisy input signals to clean outputs.	High-channel count real-time systems (e.g., BCI, Neurofeedback).	High performance, low latency, automated feature learning.	Requires a large, diverse dataset for training.
Transformer Model [43]	Uses self-attention to predict superficial noise from long-separation channels.	Virtual short-channel regression when physical short channels are not feasible.	Hardware-independent; does not require short-separation optodes.	Performance may depend on the similarity between training and application data.

Table 2: Key Performance Metrics for fNIRS Signal Quality

Metric	Formula / Definition	Interpretation	Application
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) [39]	( SNR{(dB)} = 10 \times \log{10}\left(\frac{\sigma(I)}{\mu(I)}\right) )Where ( \sigma(I) ) is std dev and ( \mu(I) ) is mean of light intensity.	Higher values indicate a stronger signal relative to noise.	Channel selection/rejection during preprocessing.
Normalized Mean Square Error (NMSE) [43]	( NMSE = \frac{\frac{1}{N} \sum{i=1}^{N} (yi - \hat{y}i)^2 }{\sigmay^2} )	Measures the average squared difference between true ((y)) and predicted ((\hat{y})) signals, normalized by variance. Lower is better.	Evaluating the accuracy of signal reconstruction (e.g., virtual channel prediction).
Pearson Correlation (r) [43]	( r = \frac{\sum{i=1}^{N} (yi - \bar{y})(\hat{y}i - \bar{\hat{y}})}{\sqrt{\sum{i=1}^{N} (yi - \bar{y})^2 \sum{i=1}^{N} (\hat{y}_i - \bar{\hat{y}})^2}} )	Measures linear correlation between true and predicted signals. Closer to 1 is better.	Quantifying similarity between ground-truth and processed signals.

Experimental Workflow Diagrams

Diagram 1: Real-Time fNIRS Processing with Deep Learning

Diagram 2: SPA-fNIRS for Systemic Noise Removal

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for High-Quality fNIRS Research

Item	Function	Application Note
High-Density Diffuse Optical Tomography (HD-DOT) [39]	Uses a dense array of sources and detectors to reconstruct 3D images of cortical hemodynamics with enhanced spatial resolution and depth sensitivity.	Ideal for applications requiring precise localization of brain activity; more complex setup than standard fNIRS.
Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) [36]	Provides objective, quantitative data on head movement (acceleration, rotation) used as a reference signal for motion artifact correction algorithms.	Crucial for validating and implementing motion correction methods, especially in real-time.
Auxiliary Physiological Monitors (ECG, Respiration Belt) [41]	Measures systemic physiological fluctuations (cardiac, respiratory) that confound fNIRS signals, enabling their removal via SPA-fNIRS.	Essential for studies where cardiovascular or autonomic changes are expected (e.g., exercise, cognitive stress).
Transformer-Based Deep Learning Model [43]	A virtual tool that reconstructs extracerebral hemodynamic signals from standard long-separation fNIRS data, enabling software-based short-channel regression.	A powerful solution when physical short-separation detectors are unavailable or impractical due to hair or cap design.
Standardized Metadata Table [8] [42]	A reporting framework that includes participant hair density, thickness, color, and skin pigmentation to document potential sources of signal quality bias.	Promotes inclusivity, reproducibility, and allows for post-hoc analysis of signal quality covariates.

Optimizing Spatial Specificity and Targeting Consistency for Repeated Measurements

Core Concepts and Challenges

FAQ: Why is consistent optode placement across multiple measurement sessions so critical for fNIRS research?

Accurate and repeatable positioning of fNIRS optodes (sources and detectors) is fundamental because it directly determines the spatial specificity of your measurements—the ability to reliably target and measure from the same cortical region across sessions. Inconsistent placement introduces variability, making it difficult to distinguish true brain activity from measurement noise and confounding the interpretation of longitudinal studies, neurofeedback training, or therapeutic drug effects. [25]

FAQ: What are the primary obstacles to achieving good signal quality and spatial accuracy in hair-covered regions?

Hair is one of the most significant practical challenges in fNIRS. Dark, thick, or curly hair can drastically reduce signal intensity by blocking or scattering light. Furthermore, without proper techniques, optodes may rest on top of hair rather than making firm contact with the scalp, leading to poor signal quality and increased motion artifacts. These factors can bias study outcomes if not adequately managed and can even lead to the exclusion of participants with certain hair types, affecting the inclusivity and generalizability of research. [12] [7] [8]

Implementation and Setup

Optimizing Probe Design and Configuration

The choice of probe layout is a primary determinant of spatial resolution. The following table summarizes the key trade-offs between different array designs.

Table 1: Comparison of fNIRS Array Configurations

Array Type	Typical Channel Spacing	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Best Suited For
Sparse Array	~30 mm	Widely available; faster setup; lower channel count.	Limited spatial resolution and sensitivity; poor localization.	Detecting presence/absence of activation in broad regions under high cognitive load. [22]
High-Density (HD) Array	Multiple, overlapping distances (e.g., 10-45 mm)	Superior spatial resolution and localization; improved sensitivity, especially for low-contrast tasks. [22]	Higher cost; more complex setup; increased data processing load. [22]	Precise localization of functional activity; studies requiring high spatial specificity. [22]

Ensuring Consistent Optode Placement

Experimental Protocol: Using 3D Digitization for Co-registration

Aim: To achieve precise and reproducible optode placement across multiple sessions using individual anatomical guidance.

Methodology:

• Place the fNIRS Cap: Fit the cap according to standard landmarks (e.g., nasion, inion, pre-auricular points).
• 3D Digitization: Use a 3D digitizer (e.g., Polhemus Patriot) to record the 3D coordinates of every fNIRS optode (sources and detectors) on the participant's head.
• Anatomical Landmarks: Also digitize key anatomical reference points (nasion, inion, left/right pre-auricular points, vertex, and any other fiducials).
• Co-registration: Use software (e.g., NIRS Brain AnalyzIR, AtlasViewer, MNE-NIRS) to coregister the digitized optode positions with a standard head model (e.g., Colin27) or, for highest accuracy, the participant's own structural MRI scan.
• Verification: For follow-up sessions, use the same coregistration protocol to verify and adjust cap placement until the virtual optode positions match the original session's target locations. [25]

This process creates a direct link between the fNIRS measurements and the underlying brain anatomy, significantly improving targeting consistency.

Managing Hair and Improving Scalp Coupling

Effective hair management is non-negotiable for quality data from hair-covered regions. The "Mini Comb" is a novel attachment designed to integrate with commercial fNIRS caps, which reduces hair clearance time by nearly 50% while achieving a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) comparable to standard methods. [12]

Experimental Protocol: Deploying the Mini Comb Attachment

Aim: To rapidly clear hair from the optode-scalp pathway, improving light coupling and SNR.

Methodology:

• Select Sliding Leg Design: Choose a sliding leg extrusion pattern suited to the participant's hair type (see Table 2).
• Attach to Cap: Secure the Mini Comb support piece to the fNIRS cap at the desired measurement location.
• Clear Hair: Place the optode into the twistable cover. Perform a clockwise twisting motion (typically ~4 twists). [12] The sliding legs will radially move hair strands away from the center, creating a clear path to the scalp.
• Secure Optode: Ensure the optode maintains firm contact with the scalp through the cleared pathway.

Table 2: Mini Comb Sliding Leg Designs for Different Hair Types [12]

Design Code	Extrusion Pattern	Target Hair Characteristics
A, C	Wide-tooth	Coarse, thick hair
B, E	Fine-tooth	Fine, straight hair
D	Detangling	Hair prone to knotting
F	Denman	Styling and curling hair
G, H	Pick	Curly, coiled, or Afro-textured hair

Troubleshooting Common Problems

FAQ: Our signals are consistently noisy or lost in several channels. What steps should we take?

This is a common issue, often related to poor optode-scalp coupling. Follow this systematic troubleshooting guide.

1. Assess Signal Quality: Visually inspect the raw optical density or hemoglobin signals for a clear cardiac rhythm (~1 Hz oscillation), which is a strong indicator of good scalp coupling. [44]

2. Inspect Physical Setup:

• Check for ambient light leaks and ensure the room is dim or the cap is covered with an opaque material. [7]
• Verify all cables are securely connected.

3. Re-attach & Clear Hair: This is often the core issue.

• Use a tool like the Mini Comb or a similar method (e.g., blunt-ended screwdriver) to systematically part the hair and ensure the optode makes direct skin contact. [12]
• Avoid pushing optodes too hard against the head, which can cause discomfort and participant movement.

4. Use Automated Quality Metrics: Before collecting task data, run a resting-state recording and use automated algorithms to flag bad channels: [44]

• Scalp Coupling Index (SCI): Measures correlation between heartbeat signals at two wavelengths. A threshold of >0.75-0.80 often indicates a good channel.
• Signal Quality Index (SQI): A more robust, multi-stage algorithm that provides a quality score from 1 (bad) to 5 (excellent) based on the cardiac component.
• Channel Rejection: Exclude channels identified as low-quality from further analysis.

FAQ: How can we effectively correct for motion artifacts that occur despite a secure setup?

Motion artifacts (MAs) remain a key challenge, presenting as spikes or baseline shifts in the signal. [36] [45] A comparative analysis of common correction techniques is provided below.

Table 3: Comparison of Motion Artifact Correction Algorithms

Algorithm	Principle	Best For	Performance Notes
Wavelet Filtering	Identifies and removes artifacts in the wavelet domain based on their distinct characteristics.	General use; particularly effective for spike-like artifacts. [45]	Showed highest efficacy in correcting task-related MAs, reducing artifact area in 93% of cases in one study. [45]
Spline Interpolation	Identifies artifact segments and replaces them with a spline interpolation of clean data segments.	Isolated, high-amplitude spike artifacts. [36] [45]	Performance can degrade if artifact segments are long or frequent.
CBSI	Uses the temporal correlation and anti-correlation between HbO and HbR signals during neural activation.	When motion artifacts are not correlated with the task. [45]	Performs well for medium-low SNR data. [46]
Accelerometer-Based (ABAMAR)	Uses data from a 3-axis accelerometer attached to the head to model and subtract motion artifacts.	Scenarios with pronounced head movements.	Requires additional hardware; effective if motion is captured by the accelerometer. [36]

Recommendation: It is almost always better to correct for motion artifacts than to reject entire trials, as trial rejection can severely reduce statistical power, especially in clinical populations. [45] A combination of prevention (secure cap, comfortable participant) and correction (e.g., using wavelet filtering) is the most robust strategy.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for fNIRS Optimization

Item / Solution	Function / Purpose
High-Density (HD) fNIRS Probe	Enables overlapping, multi-distance measurements for superior spatial resolution and localization of brain activity compared to sparse arrays. [22]
3D Digitizer	Precisely records the 3D location of optodes and anatomical landmarks, enabling co-registration with anatomical atlases for consistent targeting across sessions. [25]
Mini Comb Attachments	Customizable, 3D-printed attachments for fNIRS caps that rapidly clear hair from the optode-scalp pathway, significantly improving setup time and signal quality across diverse hair types. [12]
Automated Signal Quality Algorithms (SCI, SQI)	Provides objective, quantitative assessment of channel quality based on the presence of physiological (cardiac) signals, enabling informed decisions about channel inclusion/exclusion before formal analysis. [44]
Wavelet-Based Motion Correction Algorithm	A powerful software tool for identifying and removing motion artifacts from fNIRS data, proven to be highly effective without requiring additional hardware. [45]

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a valuable neuroimaging tool, but its signal quality is significantly influenced by participant-specific biophysical factors. Research indicates that characteristics such as hair type, skin pigmentation, and head anatomy can considerably impact signal acquisition and quality [8] [42]. Inconsistent reporting of these variables risks biasing research outcomes and reducing the reproducibility of studies, particularly as it can lead to the systematic exclusion of certain population groups from research [47]. This guide provides a standardized framework for reporting key participant metadata, along with practical solutions for mitigating signal quality challenges in hair-covered regions, thereby supporting more inclusive and methodologically robust fNIRS research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Why is standardizing the reporting of participant biophysical factors critical in fNIRS research? Standardizing metadata reporting is essential for enhancing the reliability, reproducibility, and inclusivity of fNIRS research. Variability in hair characteristics (density, thickness, color) and skin pigmentation can significantly impact light penetration and scattering, directly affecting signal quality [8] [42]. Without standardized reporting, it is challenging to compare results across studies, account for potential biases, or identify why some experiments fail to replicate. Furthermore, a lack of consideration for these factors can lead to the systematic exclusion of individuals with textured hair or darker skin tones, perpetuating inequalities in neuroimaging research [47]. Standardization helps the community understand these influences and develop more equitable practices.

Q2: What are the most common signal quality issues caused by hair, and how can they be identified? Dark and thick hair can absorb and scatter a significant amount of near-infrared light, leading to poor optode-scalp coupling and a low signal-to-noise ratio [44]. This can manifest as a weak or absent physiological signal (e.g., an indistinct cardiac waveform in the raw data) [44]. Automated metrics like the Scalp Coupling Index (SCI) and Signal Quality Index (SQI) have been developed to objectively quantify this issue by assessing the presence of cardiac components in the recorded signal [44].

Q3: What practical steps can I take to improve fNIRS signal quality for participants with thick or textured hair? Engaging with the community and hair professionals provides actionable strategies. Co-developed solutions include [47]:

• Hair Preparation: Using appropriate products and tools for textured hair to facilitate optode placement.
• Inclusive Communication: Providing clear pre-session information and maintaining open dialogue with participants about cap-fitting procedures.
• Adapted Cap-Fitting: Employing specific techniques and hairstyles that respect participant preferences while allowing for adequate optode-scalp contact. Hands-on training with textured-hair mannequins can build researcher competency in these methods [47].

Q4: Besides hair, what other participant factors should be documented? A comprehensive metadata table should include [8] [42]:

• Skin Characteristics: Skin pigmentation level.
• Head Anatomy: Head circumference and key anatomical landmarks.
• Demographics: Sex and age. These factors, along with hair properties, provide a more complete picture of the sources of individual variability in fNIRS signals.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Diagnosing and Resolving Poor Signal Quality

Problem: Low signal quality on specific channels or across a whole cap.

Diagnostic Steps:

• Check Raw Signal: Visually inspect the raw light intensity or hemoglobin data for flatlines, excessive noise, or the absence of a cardiac pulsation component, which is a key indicator of good optode-scalp contact [44].
• Run Quality Metrics: Calculate automated signal quality indices (e.g., SCI, SQI) for all channels. These provide a quantitative measure of signal reliability [44].
• Identify Pattern: Determine if the issue is localized (a few channels) or global (many channels). Localized issues often relate to specific optodes, while global issues may point to a systematic problem with cap placement or participant factors.

Solutions:

• For Localized Issues:
  • Re-seat the Optode: Gently adjust the optode holder and part the hair again to ensure direct skin contact.
  • Apply More Gel: If using a gel interface, ensure it adequately bridges the gap between the optode and scalp.
• For Widespread Issues:
  • Refit the Cap: Reposition the entire cap, paying close attention to ensuring it sits snugly against the head.
  • Employ Hair Management Techniques: Use a blunt-ended tool to create clean parts in the hair for optode placement. Consult co-developed guidelines for working with textured hair [47].

Guide 2: Implementing a Standardized Metadata Reporting Protocol

Problem: Inconsistent reporting of participant characteristics across studies in the literature.

Solution: Adopt and report the following standardized metadata table in all publications and study protocols.

Table: Proposed Standardized Metadata for fNIRS Participant Biophysical Factors

Category	Specific Variable	Method of Quantification/Description	Importance for fNIRS
Hair Characteristics	Hair Color	Categorical (e.g., black, brown, blonde, red)	Affects light absorption [8] [42].
	Hair Density	Subjective rating (low, medium, high) or quantitative measure	Impacts optode-scalp coupling and light penetration [8].
	Hair Thickness	Subjective rating (fine, medium, coarse)	Influences physical spacing and contact [8] [42].
	Hair Style & Condition	Description (e.g., braids, afro, relaxed, natural)	Critical for inclusive cap-fitting protocols [47].
Skin Characteristics	Skin Pigmentation	Ordinal scale (e.g., Fitzpatrick Scale 1-6)	Affects light absorption and scattering in superficial layers [8] [42].
Head Anatomy	Head Circumference	Continuous (cm)	Affects optode positioning and source-detector distance consistency [8].
	Anatomical Landmarks	Recorded (e.g., nasion, inion, pre-auricular points)	Essential for co-registration and spatial accuracy [38].
Demographics	Sex	Male, Female, Other	Biological sex may influence scalp thickness and hemodynamics [8].
	Age	Continuous (years)	Affects scalp thickness, skull density, and physiological noise profiles [8].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Key Materials and Tools for fNIRS Signal Quality Assurance

Item	Function/Benefit
Textured-Hair Training Mannequins	Allows researchers to practice inclusive hair preparation and cap-fitting techniques without involving participants [47].
Blunt-Ended Parting Tools	Enables creation of clean parts in thick or textured hair to facilitate direct optode-scalp contact without discomfort.
Conductive Gel (for wet systems)	Improves optical coupling between the optode and the scalp, enhancing signal strength.
Automated Signal Quality Software	Provides objective metrics (SCI, SQI) to quickly identify and exclude poor-quality channels before analysis [44].
3D Digitizer	Accurately records the 3D positions of optodes relative to anatomical landmarks, crucial for spatial specificity and reproducibility [38].
Short-Separation Detectors	Placed close to a source (~8mm), they predominantly measure systemic physiological noise from the scalp, which can be regressed out from the standard channels to improve brain signal quality [48].

Experimental Workflows & Signaling Pathways

Workflow 1: fNIRS Signal Quality Assessment and Improvement Pathway

The following diagram outlines the logical process for assessing and improving fNIRS signal quality, from initial participant preparation to final data quality check.

Workflow 2: Inclusive fNIRS Research Protocol

This workflow integrates community-driven, inclusive practices into the standard fNIRS research protocol to reduce hair-related bias.

Validating and Comparing fNIRS Methodologies for Reproducible Research

This guide addresses common questions researchers face when selecting and implementing functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) arrays, with a specific focus on overcoming challenges in hair-covered regions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Q1: What is the fundamental difference in hardware between a sparse and a high-density (HD) fNIRS array?

  • A: The core difference lies in the layout and density of the optodes (sources and detectors). A sparse array typically uses a non-overlapping grid pattern with a standard ~30 mm spacing between sources and detectors, creating a single measurement channel per pair [22] [23]. A high-density (HD) array uses a tighter, often hexagonal, layout with multiple overlapping source-detector pairs at various distances (e.g., from 10 mm to 40 mm), creating a dense web of overlapping measurement channels [22] [23] [49].

• Q2: My research involves studying the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), which is often hair-covered. Which array type is more suitable?

  • A: For detailed mapping of the dlPFC, an HD array is generally superior. Evidence from Word-Color Stroop tasks, which activate the dlPFC, shows that HD arrays provide better localization and sensitivity in this region, especially during lower cognitive load tasks [22] [23]. However, a sparse array may still detect the presence of activation during highly demanding tasks, though it will struggle to localize it precisely [23]. It is critical to pair the array choice with proper hair management techniques (see Section 4) to ensure good optode-scalp coupling [8] [4].

• Q3: We work with diverse populations. How do hair and skin characteristics influence signal quality and array choice?

  • A: Hair and skin characteristics are critical biophysical factors. Denser and darker hair absorbs more near-infrared light, reducing the amount that reaches the cortex. Similarly, higher skin pigmentation (darker skin) also increases light absorption [8] [4] [7]. These factors can disproportionately reduce signal quality across diverse populations if not addressed. Meticulous cap placement and hair management are essential to mitigate these effects. HD arrays' multiple overlapping channels can sometimes provide redundancy that helps overcome localized signal loss [4].

• Q4: What are the main trade-offs when considering an HD array versus a sparse array?

  • A: The decision involves a balance between performance and practical resources.
    • HD Array Pros: Superior spatial resolution, improved sensitivity, better localization of brain activity, and more accurate decoding performance [22] [23] [49].
    • HD Array Cons: Higher cost, increased setup time and complexity (particularly in hairy regions), greater computational load for data processing, and the need for more complex analysis pipelines [22] [23].
    • Sparse Array Pros: Lower cost, faster setup, simpler data processing, and sufficient for detecting strong, broad activation in cognitively demanding paradigms [23].
    • Sparse Array Cons: Limited spatial resolution, poor localization, lower sensitivity to subtle or focal brain activity, and susceptibility to signal contamination from superficial tissues [22] [23].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The following tables summarize key quantitative findings from recent studies comparing sparse and high-density fNIRS arrays.

Table 1: Performance Metrics for Sparse vs. High-Density Arrays

Metric	Sparse Array (~30 mm)	High-Density (HD) Array (~13 mm)	Ultra-High-Density (UHD) Array (~6.5 mm)	Notes / Source
Inter-Optode Spacing	~30 mm	~10 - 13 mm	~6.5 mm	[22] [49]
Spatial Resolution	Limited	~13-16 mm FWHM	~30-50% better than HD	Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of Point Spread Function [49].
Localization Error	Higher	Lower	2-4 mm smaller than HD	Error in pinpointing the centroid of brain activity [49].
Signal Sensitivity	Suitable for high-load tasks	Superior for all tasks, especially low-load	Higher than HD	HD arrays capture stronger, more reliable signals [22] [23].
Noise-to-Signal Ratio	Higher	Lower	1.4-2.0x better than HD	Lower NSR indicates a cleaner signal [49].
Decoding Performance	Not Reported	Baseline	19-35% lower error	Visual stimulus decoding in occipital cortex [49].

Table 2: Impact of Participant-Level Factors on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Impact on Signal Quality	Recommended Mitigation Strategy
Hair Density & Color	Denser/darker hair can reduce signal intensity by 20-50% and impede optode-scalp coupling [4] [7].	Use cotton-tipped applicators to part hair; apply ultrasound gel to displace hair under optodes; ensure consistent cap pressure [4].
Skin Pigmentation	Higher melanin content increases light absorption, reducing cortical signal strength [8] [4].	Ensure optimal optode-scalp coupling; use systems with high dynamic range; report participant skin pigmentation (Melanin Index) in metadata [8] [4].
Head Motion	Causes motion artifacts and can displace optodes, severely degrading signal [7].	Secure cap with a chin strap; use motion correction algorithms (e.g., wavelet filtering); instruct participants to minimize movement [4] [7].

Experimental Protocols for Array Comparison

To ensure reproducible and high-quality fNIRS data, below is a generalized workflow for setting up an experiment, followed by a detailed protocol from a key cited study.

Detailed Protocol: Direct Comparison of Sparse vs. HD Arrays during a Word-Color Stroop Task [22] [23]

• Aim: To provide a statistical comparison of HD and sparse fNIRS performance in detecting and localizing prefrontal cortex activation.
• Participants: 17 healthy adults.
• fNIRS Setup:
  • Sparse Array: Modeled after the Hitachi ETG-4000 system, arranged in a traditional 30-mm grid pattern over the prefrontal cortex.
  • HD Array: A custom hexagonal-patterned array with overlapping, multi-distance channels, designed to cover the same field-of-view as the sparse array.
  • Both arrays included short-separation channels (~8 mm) to regress out physiological noise from superficial tissues.
• Paradigm: Word-Color Stroop (WCS) task with congruent and incongruent conditions to vary cognitive load. The incongruent condition is known to strongly engage the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC).
• Procedure:
  • Participants wore the fNIRS cap, and optode-scalp coupling was optimized using real-time signal quality monitoring.
  • fNIRS data was collected during multiple blocks of congruent and incongruent WCS trials.
  • Data was preprocessed (e.g., motion correction, filtering) and converted to oxygenated (HbO) and deoxygenated (HbR) hemoglobin concentrations.
  • Activation was analyzed both in "channel space" and reconstructed into "image space" on the cortical surface.
• Key Outcome Measures: Group-level t-statistics for HbO and HbR, spatial localization of activation, and signal strength.

Troubleshooting Guide: Optimizing for Hair-Covered Regions

Common Problem: Low signal quality or excessive noise due to poor optode-scalp coupling in areas with dense hair.

Actionable Solutions:

• Cap Placement Technique: Always place the cap starting from the front (forehead) and extending it to the back of the head. This prevents hair from being pushed forward and bunching up under the optodes [4].
• Hair Parting: Use cotton-tipped applicators to gently push hair away from the precise location where the optode will make contact with the scalp. This creates a clear path for the light [4].
• Use of Ultrasound Gel: Apply a small amount of ultrasound gel directly into the grommet holding the optode. As the optode is inserted, the gel helps to displace remaining hair and fills gaps, significantly improving optical contact [4]. This is a key technique for achieving usable signals in very dense hair.
• Environmental Control: After securing the cap, place an opaque, light-blocking shower cap over the entire fNIRS assembly. This prevents ambient light from leaking in and contaminating the signal, which is especially important if hair prevents a perfect seal [4] [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Essential Materials for fNIRS Experiments in Hair-Covered Regions

Item	Function & Brief Explanation
fNIRS System with Short-Separation Channels	A continuous-wave fNIRS system (e.g., NIRSport2) capable of measuring short-separation (~8 mm) channels is essential. These channels are primarily sensitive to superficial layers (scalp, skull) and allow for regression of systemic physiological noise, improving the specificity of the cortical signal [4].
Flexible fNIRS Cap (e.g., NinjaCap)	A 3D-printed, flexible cap made from materials like NinjaFlex provides a snug and comfortable fit on various head shapes, improving stability and reducing motion artifacts. Its elasticity aids in maintaining consistent optode pressure [4].
Ultrasound Gel	Used as a coupling medium. Its viscosity is ideal for displacing hair and filling the space between the optode and the scalp, ensuring efficient light transmission and reducing signal loss [4].
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Essential tools for precise hair parting and management underneath the cap and around individual optodes without damaging equipment [4].
Opaque Shower Cap / Light-Blocking Cover	A simple and effective tool to block ambient light from reaching the sensitive optical detectors, preventing this external light from contaminating the fNIRS signal [4] [7].
Chin Strap	Helps stabilize the cap on the participant's head, reducing movement-induced artifacts and potential optode displacement during the experiment [4].

Technical Support Center

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the most common factors that reduce fNIRS signal quality in hair-covered regions? Signal quality in hair-covered regions is primarily compromised by several biophysical and methodological factors. Key factors include hair characteristics (density, thickness, and color), where darker and thicker hair can reduce signal intensity by 20-50% [50]. Skin pigmentation also affects light absorption and scattering [8] [42]. Additionally, improper optode-scalp contact due to hair and motion artifacts from participant movement significantly degrade signal quality [51] [50].

Q2: How does analytical flexibility impact the reproducibility of fNIRS findings? The FRESH initiative, which had 38 research teams analyze the same datasets, demonstrated that while nearly 80% agreed on group-level results for well-supported hypotheses, individual-level agreement was lower [26]. This variability stems from diverse choices in handling poor-quality data, modeling hemodynamic responses, and statistical analysis methods [26]. Teams with higher self-reported confidence and more fNIRS experience showed greater agreement, highlighting how analytical flexibility introduces variability that can affect study conclusions.

Q3: Are there demographic characteristics that disproportionately affect fNIRS data quality? Yes, research indicates that signal quality can vary with specific demographic and physiological characteristics. One study found that fNIRS signals were generally worse for Black women compared to Black men and White individuals regardless of gender [5]. Other factors include head size, sex, and age [8] [42]. These findings underscore the risk of biased outcomes if these factors are not properly addressed and highlight the need for hardware and methodological advances to ensure equity in fNIRS research [8] [5].

Q4: What are the most effective strategies for preventing motion artifacts? Motion artifacts can be minimized through a combination of careful experimental design and hardware setup:

• Task Design: Minimize unnecessary movement in your experimental protocol [51].
• Secure Optode Placement: Use a well-fitting headcap and ensure firm optode-scalp contact. Part hair using a hair removal tool and consider spring-loaded optode holders that automatically adjust pressure [51].
• Participant Instructions: Clearly instruct participants to minimize non-essential movements [51].
• Post-Processing: Implement motion correction algorithms (e.g., wavelet filtering, spline interpolation) to manage residual artifacts [51] [50].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: Poor Signal Quality Due to Hair and Skin Characteristics Table: Impact of Biophysical Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Factor	Impact on Signal	Recommended Mitigation Strategy
Hair Color & Density [50]	Reduces intensity (20-50%); affects optode stability.	Part hair with tool; use spring-loaded holders; ensure firm scalp contact.
Skin Pigmentation [8] [5]	Affects light absorption/scattering.	Follow inclusive hardware design; report participant metadata.
Head Size & Anatomy [8]	Alters optode positioning and light path.	Use adjustable caps; customize optode arrays for individual anatomy.

Recommended Metadata to Report for Inclusivity [8] [38]:

• Hair color, density, and thickness
• Skin pigmentation level
• Head circumference
• Participant sex and age
• Any relevant medical history

Problem: Low Reproducibility Due to Analysis Pipeline Variability Table: Common Sources of Analytical Variability and Best Practices

Source of Variability	Impact on Results	Best Practice Recommendation
Handling Poor-Quality Data [26]	Alters channel inclusion/exclusion, affecting outcome measures.	Predefine and report quality thresholds (e.g., SCI) and channel rejection criteria.
Modeling Hemodynamic Response [26]	Changes the shape and magnitude of the estimated brain activity.	Clearly state the HRF model and fitting procedure (block averaging vs. GLM).
Statistical Testing & Multiple Comparisons [26] [38]	Increases false positive/negative rates; affects statistical maps.	Pre-specify statistical models; apply and report multiple comparison correction method.

Experimental Protocol for Assessing Signal Quality [5]: A standardized protocol for quantifying signal quality involves using the Quality Testing of Near Infrared Scans (QT-NIRS) toolbox to extract objective metrics:

• Record a short resting-state baseline (e.g., 1-5 minutes) with the participant relaxed.
• Process the data through QT-NIRS to generate key metrics:
  • Scalp Coupling Index (SCI): A measure of the pulsatile signal quality for each channel.
  • Peak Spectral Power: The power of the cardiac-frequency component in the signal.
  • Number of Bad Channels: Channels failing to meet a predefined SCI threshold (e.g., < 0.8).
• Use these metrics to objectively include/exclude participants or channels from further analysis and to report on data quality in publications.

Problem: Signal Contamination from Motion and Physiological Noise

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for fNIRS

Item	Function/Benefit
Spring-Loaded Optode Holders [51]	Maintains consistent, optimal pressure against the scalp, automatically compensating for different hair volumes and improving signal stability.
Hair Parting Tool [51]	Essential for parting hair to create a clear path for optodes to make direct contact with the scalp.
Quality Testing Toolbox (QT-NIRS) [5]	Provides standardized, objective metrics (e.g., Scalp Coupling Index) to quantify raw signal quality before advanced processing.
Multi-Distance Optode Setup [38]	Enables depth-sensitive measurements, helping to separate superficial (skin, scalp) from deep (cortical) signals.
Motion Correction Algorithms [51]	Software tools (e.g., wavelet filtering, spline interpolation) to identify and reduce motion artifacts in the collected data.
Structured Reporting Checklist [52] [38]	Ensures comprehensive reporting of methods and results, enhancing the reproducibility and reliability of published findings.

For research aimed at improving fNIRS signal quality in hair-covered regions, benchmarking signal quality is a foundational step. The optical nature of fNIRS makes it susceptible to various confounding factors, with hair and skin characteristics posing significant challenges to obtaining reliable data [4]. Without standardized metrics and practices, comparing results across studies or ensuring the replicability of findings within this specific research context becomes problematic.

This guide establishes a framework for benchmarking fNIRS signal quality, providing researchers with standardized metrics, detailed experimental protocols, and clear guidelines to enhance the reliability and cross-study comparability of their work.

Quantitative Signal Quality Metrics

A robust benchmarking system relies on quantifiable metrics. The following table summarizes the primary automated algorithms used for assessing fNIRS signal quality.

Table 1: Key Automated Algorithms for fNIRS Signal Quality Assessment

Metric Name	Underlying Principle	Typical Threshold for a "Good" Signal	Primary Advantages	Key Limitations
Scalp Coupling Index (SCI) [44]	Correlation between cardiac components in the two raw light intensity wavelengths (e.g., 760 & 850 nm).	≥ 0.75 or 0.80 [44]	Simple to compute and interpret.	Cannot detect motion artifacts that affect both wavelengths equally.
Placing Headgear Optodes Efficiently Before Experimentation (PHOEBE) [44]	Spectral power of the cross-correlation between wavelengths, focusing on the cardiac peak.	A clear, dominant peak at the cardiac frequency.	Improved sensitivity over SCI by specifically isolating the heartbeat.	More computationally complex than SCI.
Signal Quality Index (SQI) [44]	A multi-stage algorithm focusing on cardiac component detection.	Numeric scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).	Provides a nuanced rating scale; offers higher performance than SCI and PHOEBE.	Most complex algorithm to implement.
Coefficient of Variation (CV) [44]	Relative variability of the raw light intensity signal (Standard Deviation/Mean).	Study-specific thresholds required.	Simple statistical measure; easy to automate.	Cannot distinguish physiological signals from motion artifacts; may reject strong valid signals.

Standardized Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure that signal quality assessments are consistent across studies, the following experimental protocols should be adopted.

Pre-Data Collection: Cap Placement and Hair Management

Proper optode-scalp coupling is the most critical factor for high-quality data, especially in hair-covered regions.

• Consistent Cap Positioning: Use the international 10-20 system (e.g., Cz, nasion, inion) to ensure consistent and reproducible cap placement across participants and sessions [4].
• Systematic Hair Management: Hair between the optodes and scalp scatters and absorbs light, severely degrading signal quality [12]. Protocols must be explicit:
  • Directionality: Place the cap from the front of the head towards the back to prevent hair from falling forward under the optodes [4].
  • Clearance Techniques: Use validated methods to part hair, such as the Mini Comb attachment, which can reduce hair clearance time by nearly 50% while achieving a comparable Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) to standard procedures [12]. The design of such tools (e.g., wide-tooth, fine-tooth, pick) should be matched to hair type (straight, wavy, curly, kinky) for optimal results [12].
  • Coupling Enhancement: Use cotton-tipped applicators or similar tools to push hair away from under the optodes. Using a small amount of ultrasound gel can also improve coupling [4].

Data Collection: The Resting-State Protocol

A standardized resting-state recording is essential for calculating baseline signal quality metrics independent of any task.

• Procedure: Participants should be instructed to remain as still and mentally idle as possible for a recommended duration of three minutes [4].
• Environment: Control ambient light by turning off modulated LED lights, using incandescent floor lamps, and covering the fNIRS cap with an opaque material (e.g., a black shower cap) to prevent light contamination [4] [7].
• Signal Optimization: Run the acquisition system's signal optimization function and record the final signal levels and quality metrics for each channel before starting the experimental task [4].

Data Processing and Reporting Standards

Transparent reporting of data processing steps is vital for cross-study comparison.

• Preprocessing Pipeline: The Society for fNIRS has published a best practices checklist that should be followed [38]. Key steps include:
  • Channel Rejection: Explicitly state the criteria (e.g., SCI < 0.8) and the number of channels rejected.
  • Motion Artifact Correction: Describe the algorithm used (e.g., wavelet filtering, spline interpolation).
  • Physiological Noise Removal: Detail the approach for handling systemic physiological signals from the scalp.
• Signal Quality Reporting: In publications, include a summary of signal quality metrics. The following table provides a template for reporting key parameters that influence signal quality, as recommended by recent inclusivity-focused research [4]:

Table 2: Key Participant and Signal Quality Metadata for Reporting

Metadata Category	Specific Parameters to Report	Rationale for Inclusivity and Comparability
Participant Demographics	Age, Sex, Head Circumference	Controls for biological factors known to affect signal quality [4].
Hair Characteristics	Color, Density, Shaft Thickness, Curl/Coil Pattern (e.g., using validated scales).	Quantifies factors that critically impact light penetration and optode coupling [4] [7].
Skin Pigmentation	Melanin Index (measured via melanometer).	Accounts for the impact of skin pigmentation on light absorption [4].
Signal Quality Outcomes	Mean SCI or SQI across channels, Percentage of good channels.	Provides a quantitative baseline for the dataset's reliability.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for fNIRS Signal Quality Research

Item Name	Function/Benefit	Example/Specification
fNIRS System	Continuous-wave systems are common; ensure the system supports short-separation channels.	NIRSport2, Artinis Brite, Hitachi ETG-4000 [4] [12].
Mini Comb Attachments	Customizable, 3D-printed tools to rapidly part hair and improve optode-scalp coupling.	Sliding leg designs matched to hair type (e.g., wide-tooth for thick/curly hair) [12].
Ultrasound Gel	Coupling medium that enhances light transmission between optode and scalp.	Standard, non-corrosive ultrasonic transmission gel.
Melanometer	Quantifies skin pigmentation (Melanin Index) for objective reporting of participant characteristics.	Devices like the DSMII ColorMeter [4].
High-Resolution Trichoscope	Provides objective measurement of hair characteristics like density and shaft thickness.	A specialized digital microscope for hair and scalp analysis [4].
Opaque Cap Cover	Blocks ambient light from contaminating the fNIRS signal.	Blackout or shower cap material [4].

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

FAQ 1: Why is benchmarking signal quality particularly important for research on hair-covered regions?

Hair is a major confound in fNIRS; darker and denser hair can reduce signal intensity by 20-50% [7]. Without standardized benchmarking, it is impossible to distinguish whether a poor result is due to the experimental paradigm, the hardware, or simply inadequate optode-scalp coupling in challenging hair types. Benchmarking ensures that the data from diverse populations is of high quality, thereby reducing bias and improving the inclusivity and generalizability of fNIRS research [4].

FAQ 2: What is the "gold standard" method for improving signal quality against which new methods should be benchmarked?

The current gold standard for removing unwanted systemic physiological noise (e.g., from scalp blood flow) is the use of short-separation channels (SSCs) [53] [18]. These are detectors placed very close to a source (typically ~8 mm) such that they are sensitive primarily to the superficial layers (scalp) and not the brain. The signal from these SSCs can be regressed out from the standard long-separation channels (~30 mm) using a General Linear Model (GLM) or PCA, a method shown to be superior to other approaches like the anti-correlation method [53] [18]. Any new method for improving signal quality in hair-covered regions should be compared against the performance of data processed with SSCs.

FAQ 3: We don't have access to automated signal quality algorithms. What is a quick visual check for a good signal?

A strong indicator of good optode-scalp coupling is the clear presence of a cardiac cycle in the raw light intensity or oxygenated hemoglobin (O2Hb) signal [44]. If you can see the regular, small pulsations of the heartbeat (~1 Hz) in the signal, it is likely of good quality. A flat, saturated, or extremely noisy signal lacks this cardiac component.

FAQ 4: How can we control for the variable of environmental light across different testing sites?

Standardize the lighting conditions during data collection. This involves:

• Turning off pulse-wave modulated overhead LEDs.
• Using incandescent or fluorescent floor lamps with steady light.
• Covering the fNIRS cap with an opaque, black shower cap to block any residual light, especially from computer monitors [4]. Reporting these steps in your methods ensures others can replicate your environment.

Workflow and Signaling Pathways

fNIRS Signal Quality Benchmarking Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the end-to-end process for standardizing fNIRS signal quality assessment, from participant preparation to data reporting.

Signaling Pathway of fNIRS Data from Acquisition to Interpretation

This diagram outlines the logical pathway of an fNIRS signal, highlighting key points where signal quality can be degraded or improved, forming the basis for targeted troubleshooting.

Technical Support & Troubleshooting Guides

FAQ: Addressing Common HD-fNIRS Experimental Challenges

Q1: Why is our signal quality poor from participants with dark or dense hair? A: Hair characteristics significantly impact signal quality. Darker hair colors (e.g., black) can reduce signal intensity by 20–50% compared to lighter hair [50]. Dense hair also physically impedes optode-scalp coupling and absorbs/scatters more near-infrared light [4].

• Solution: Implement thorough "proper capping" procedures:
  • Use cotton-tipped applicators to push hair aside from under optodes
  • Apply small amounts of ultrasound gel to improve optical contact
  • Temporarily remove optodes from grommets to maneuver hair beneath them
  • Consider high-density arrays which can improve signal acquisition in challenging regions [4]

Q2: How much does participant motion affect our dlPFC data, and how can we mitigate it? A: Gross motor movements (walking, head turning, nodding) significantly reduce fNIRS signal quality by disrupting optode-skin contact and creating motion artifacts [50]. Even smaller movements like jaw motions from speech can affect signal quality [50].

• Solution:
  • Use motion correction algorithms (Wavelet Filtering, Spline Interpolation) to filter noise and artifacts [50]
  • Implement short-separation channels (SSCs) with short-channel regression (SCR) to remove motion-related superficial hemodynamics [54]
  • Ensure secure but comfortable cap fitting to minimize optode shifting [50]

Q3: Our sparse fNIRS array detects dlPFC activation inconsistently. Should we upgrade to HD-fNIRS? A: Sparse arrays (30mm spacing) have limited spatial resolution and sensitivity, which can lead to inconsistent detection, particularly for lower cognitive load tasks [22] [23]. High-density (HD) arrays with overlapping, multi-distance channels provide superior localization and sensitivity [22].

• Solution Consideration: HD arrays demonstrate:
  • Better localization and sensitivity in image space [22]
  • Improved detection during lower cognitive load tasks [23]
  • Enhanced inter-subject consistency [22]
  • Trade-off: Increased setup time, cost, and computational requirements [22]

Q4: How does environmental light affect our prefrontal cortex measurements? A: Ambient light (both natural and artificial) can contaminate fNIRS signals when optode-skin coupling is inefficient, allowing photodetectors to detect surrounding light [50].

• Solution:
  • Collect data in a dark room [50]
  • Cover the cap with opaque material (e.g., shower cap) [50] [4]
  • Use incandescent lighting instead of pulse-wave modulated LEDs [4]
  • Ensure tight optode-skin coupling during setup [50]

Table 1: Impact of Participant Factors on fNIRS Signal Quality

Factor	Impact Level	Quantitative Effect	Recommended Mitigation
Hair Color	Significant	20-50% signal reduction in dark hair [50]	Enhanced optode-scalp coupling; hair management [4]
Hair Density/Type	Significant	Dense/curly hair reduces signal [4]	Thorough capping procedures; gel application [4]
Skin Pigmentation	Significant	Higher melanin absorbs more NIR light [4]	Signal quality optimization; inclusive cap design [4]
Gross Motor Movements	High	Notable signal quality reduction [50]	Motion correction algorithms; secure cap fitting [50]
Hair Cleanliness	Minimal	No significant effects found [50]	Focus efforts on other factors

Table 2: Performance Comparison: Sparse vs. High-Density fNIRS Arrays

Parameter	Sparse Arrays	High-Density Arrays	Experimental Evidence
Spatial Resolution	Limited	Superior	Improved localization in image space [22]
Sensitivity	Lower, especially for low cognitive load	Higher for all conditions	Better detection during congruent Stroop tasks [23]
dlPFC Detection Consistency	Variable between subjects	Improved inter-subject consistency	Enhanced group-level statistical power [22]
Setup Complexity	Lower	Higher, especially in hairy regions [22]	Increased optode density requires more time [22]
Cognitive Load Detection	Suitable for high load tasks (incongruent Stroop)	Suitable for all cognitive load levels [23]	Detects activation across task demands [23]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: HD-fNIRS Setup for dlPFC Studies

Objective: Reliable detection of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation during cognitive tasks [22]

Materials:

• High-density fNIRS system with multi-distance channels (e.g., NinjaNIRS layout) [22]
• Customizable cap (e.g., 3D-printed NinjaCap) [4]
• Ultrasound gel for optical contact
• Cotton-tipped applicators for hair management
• Opaque cap cover (e.g., shower cap) for light exclusion [4]

Procedure:

• Cap Placement: Place cap front-to-back to prevent hair forward movement. Align Cz marker midway between nasion and inion, equidistant from ear-to-ear [4].
• Hair Management: Use cotton-tipped applicators to move hair from under optodes. Apply minimal ultrasound gel to improve optical contact if needed [4].
• Signal Optimization: Run system's signal optimization function while making minor adjustments to optode positioning [4].
• Environmental Control: Turn off overhead pulsed LEDs; use incandescent floor lamps; place opaque cover over fNIRS cap [4].
• Quality Verification: Re-run signal optimization to ensure maintained signal quality after environmental adjustments [4].

Protocol 2: Word-Color Stroop Task for dlPFC Activation

Objective: Evoke and measure cognitive load-dependent dlPFC activation [22] [23]

Task Design:

• Conditions: Congruent and incongruent word-color matching [22]
• Block Structure: 40 blocks counterbalanced across 4 levels [54]
• Stimuli Duration: 2.2s stimulus presentation followed by 0.7s response interval [54]
• Inter-Block Interval: 15-20s resting periods with fixation cross [54]

fNIRS Parameters:

• Prefrontal Coverage: Optodes positioned over dlPFC regions [22]
• Channel Types: Include both long-separation (~30mm) and short-separation channels (~8mm) [4]
• Sampling Rate: 10.2 Hz [4]
• Wavelengths: 760 and 850 nm [4]

Protocol 3: Signal Processing with Short-Channel Regression

Objective: Remove superficial hemodynamic contamination from dlPIRS signals [54]

Processing Pipeline:

• Motion Artifact Correction: Apply wavelet filtering or spline interpolation [50]
• Short-Channel Regression: Use signals from 8mm channels to regress out superficial components from long-channel data [54]
• Hemodynamic Response Estimation: Apply general linear modeling with canonical HRF [54]
• Statistical Analysis: Compare oxygenated hemoglobin changes across task conditions using t-statistics [22]

Signaling Pathways & Experimental Workflows

HD-fNIRS Experimental and Processing Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Essential Materials for HD-fNIRS dlPFC Research

Item	Function/Purpose	Technical Specifications
HD-fNIRS System	Brain activity measurement via hemodynamic changes	Multi-distance channels; 760 & 850nm wavelengths; ~10Hz sampling rate [22] [4]
NinjaCap or Similar	Secure optode placement and positioning	3D-printed customizable design; hexagonal netting; multiple sizes (55cm, 57cm) [4]
Short-Separation Channels	Superficial signal regression	8mm source-detector distance; used with SCR to remove extracerebral contamination [54]
Ultrasound Gel	Improve optode-scalp optical coupling	Acoustic gel suitable for optical contact; minimal absorption in NIR spectrum [4]
Opaque Cap Cover	Block ambient light contamination	Light-tight material (e.g., shower cap) to prevent signal interference [50] [4]
Cotton-Tipped Applicators	Hair management under optodes	Fine-tipped for precise hair repositioning without discomfort [4]
Signal Processing Software	Motion correction and statistical analysis	Wavelet filtering, spline interpolation, GLM implementation [50] [54]

Conclusion

Ensuring high fNIRS signal quality in hair-covered regions is not merely a technical hurdle but a fundamental requirement for equitable and rigorous neuroscience. The synthesis of recent evidence confirms that a multi-pronged approach is essential: understanding biophysical barriers, adopting advanced HD hardware and inclusive application protocols, implementing rigorous troubleshooting, and committing to methodological validation. For the field to advance, particularly in clinical trials and drug development where precise biomarkers are critical, researchers must adopt these standardized, inclusive practices. Future directions must focus on developing next-generation, bias-resistant hardware and establishing community-wide standards for data processing and reporting. By systematically addressing the 'hair barrier,' we can unlock the full potential of fNIRS for diverse, global populations and generate neuroimaging data that is truly representative and reliable.

References

• 1. Hair management tips for fNIRS - [https://www.cortivision.com/hair-management-tips-for-fnirs/]
• 2. Demographic reporting and phenotypic exclusion in fNIRS [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1086208/full]
• 3. Quantifying the Impact of Hair and Skin Characteristics on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39554177/]
• 4. Quantifying the Impact of Hair and Skin Characteristics on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11565806/]
• 5. The effects of protocol factors and participant ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666956025000443]
• 6. Optimizing spatial specificity and signal quality in fNIRS [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11188482/]
• 7. A preliminary exploration of hair color, hair cleanliness, light ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304356]
• 8. Quantifying the impact of hair and skin characteristics on ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40897802/]
• 9. Quantifying the impact of hair and skin characteristics on fNIRS ... signal [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02274-7?error=cookies_not_supported&code=be9f36c5-6bc3-4cf2-9b72-bacca6a7fbb6]
• 10. fNIRS signal quality affected by hair and skin type, study finds [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-basem-hamid-md-houston-tx_how-hair-and-skin-characteristics-affect-activity-7386743140952596480-w0Sx]
• 11. Through Improving , Skin Research fNIRS Signal Quality Hair [https://scienmag.com/improving-fnirs-signal-quality-through-hair-skin-research/]
• 12. Customizable optode attachments to improve hair ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11587899/]
• 13. Best practices for fNIRS publications [https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/neurophotonics/volume-8/issue-01/012101/Best-practices-for-fNIRS-publications/10.1117/1.NPh.8.1.012101.full]
• 14. NIRx | fNIRS Systems | NIRS Devices [https://nirx.net/]
• 15. Current Status and Issues Regarding Pre-processing of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00505/full]
• 16. An Investigation of Diverse Signal Filtering Methods Within ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6336925/]
• 17. Automated Processing of fNIRS Data—A Visual Guide to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6428450/]
• 18. Comparing fNIRS signal qualities between approaches with ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244186]
• 19. Improving optical contact for functional near‑infrared brain ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3342194/]
• 20. Detect and correct bias in multi-site neuroimaging datasets [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361841520302437]
• 21. Deep learning-based unlearning of dataset bias for MRI ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7903160/]
• 22. High-density multidistance fNIRS enhances detection of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12412631/]
• 23. High-Density Multi-Distance fNIRS Enhances Detection of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11952576/]
• 24. A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the fNIRS-EEG Dual-Modality ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11506513/]
• 25. Optimizing spatial specificity and signal quality in fNIRS [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10.3389/fnrgo.2024.1286586/full]
• 26. fNIRS reproducibility varies with data quality, analysis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08412-1]
• 27. PHOEBE: a method for real time mapping of optodes-scalp ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5175555/]
• 28. fNIRS Optodes' Location Decider (fOLD): a toolbox for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21716-z]
• 29. Spatial registration for functional near-infrared ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811913007805]
• 30. Targeting brain regions of interest in functional near‐infrared ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046049/]
• 31. Optimal positioning of optodes on the scalp for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165027018302425]
• 32. Developing an inclusive approach to fNIRS research in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12425162/]
• 33. Hair, Hair for Equity in Neuroscience Research [https://bbi.umd.edu/news/story/hair-hair-for-equity-in-neuroscience-research]
• 34. Short-channel regression in functional near-infrared ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7523733/]
• 35. Automated Processing of fNIRS Data—A Visual Guide to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/11/5/67]
• 36. Motion artifacts removal and evaluation techniques for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2022.878750/full]
• 37. Motion artifacts removal and evaluation techniques for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9576156/]
• 38. Best practices for fNIRS publications - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7793571/]
• 39. A Deep-Learning Empowered, Real-Time Processing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12270413/]
• 40. Characterizing motion artifacts in functional near-infrared ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809425007670]
• 41. Brain and Body: SPA-fNIRS Solves Physiological Signal ... [https://blog.biopac.com/spa-fnirs/]
• 42. Quantifying the impact of hair and skin characteristics on ... [https://www.bu.edu/cbr/publications/quantifying-the-impact-of-hair-and-skin-characteristics-on-fnirs-signal-quality-for-enhanced-inclusivity/]
• 43. Transformer-based deep learning model for predicting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12618017/]
• 44. Ensuring good fNIRS data quality - Automatic assessment ... [https://www.artinis.com/blogpost-all/automatic-assessment-of-signal-quality]
• 45. Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3762942/]
• 46. Investigation of functional near-infrared spectroscopy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9116886/]
• 47. Toward Equitable Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy ... [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/grand-challenges/case-studies/2025/jan/toward-equitable-functional-near-infrared-spectroscopy-fnirs-neuroimaging-ucl]
• 48. Beyond the Brain: Physiological Signals in fNIRS Research [https://nirx.net/blog-content/beyondthebrain-spafnirs-integrating-physiology-wings2]
• 49. Ultra high density imaging arrays in diffuse optical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85858-7]
• 50. Opening the dialogue: A preliminary exploration of hair color ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11115287/]
• 51. Motion artefacts in (f)NIRS — Not a problem, but not to be ... [https://www.artinis.com/blogpost-all/motion-artefacts-in-fnirs-not-a-problem-but-needs-attention]
• 52. Best practices for fNIRS publications [https://fnirs.org/best-practices-for-fnirs-publications/]
• 53. Comparing fNIRS signal qualities between approaches ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7757903/]
• 54. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy short-channel ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12368614/]