Monday October 12 2020, 10:00-11:00 AM EDT
The video recording of the session is below.
Use the commenting tool to discuss the presentations given in this session. Please register as a member to be able to ask and answer questions https://fnirs.org/account/. You can register for free for this web content.
Yale School of Medicine, USA
|Emerging fNIRS-based current and future advances in two-person neuroscience||
University College London, UK
|Brain mechanisms of mutual prediction in face-to-face social interaction||
Boston Children’s Hospital, USA
|Using fNIRS to assess functional connectivity patterns in newborn infants associated with differences in affect and behavior||
CNRS, Paris, France
University of Padua, Italy
|NIRS-EEG co-recording: challenges and solutions||
Nottingham University, UK
|Prediction of cochlear implant outcome using fNIRS||
University of Bern, Switzerland
|Color -dependent changes in cerebral hemodynamics, oxygenation, and systemic physiology during a multitask paradigm: A SPA-fNIRS study||
University of Rome Foro Italico, Italy
|Modifications in pre-frontal cortex oxygenation during different walking conditions: an assessment through fNIRS and wearable inertial sensors||
|MoP2||Panel Discussion||Cognitive and Social Neuroscience Moderators: Lauren Emberson & Stephane Perrey||
Return to main chat page https://fnirs.org/conferences/fnirs-datablitz-2020-chat/
Hi all– looking forward to getting your questions for the speakers here.
Interesting talk! High and low disparity difference seems surprising. Why are FP and DLPFC activated? Does it reflect higher cognitive load?
Thanks for your very interesting talk and results. Which system did you use, channels and what’s the layout of channels?
Thank you for your kind words. We collect data using a NirX Nirscout system. Our cap layout, which contains 49 channels, cover mainly prefrontal and temporal areas. If you are interested, I encourage you to check out our preprint which has more information on the system and localization of the channels: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.204271v1
Is there a pre-print available with these results?
Thank you for your interest in our work. We do have a preprint available on BioRxiv. Please see: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.204271v1
Really enjoyed your talk! Might have missed it, but what task/stimulus did the infants do or look at whilst wearing the NIRS system?
Great question. We presented the infants with non-social clips from Baby Einstein videos. For a discussion of the use of video during resting state tasks in pediatric populations I highly recommend a recent review article published in Neuroimage by Camacho et al. (2020).
Nice work. Could you please elaborate a little about FC calculation. Does the results have some coherance with structural connections. ? Thank you in advance.
This is a great question. We do not have data that are able to speak to this point. However, my understanding of the fMRI work that has been done is that there is not a direct association between structural and functional connectivity. Therefore, we should consider these measures separately. I would encourage others with more knowledge of this area to respond.
Challenging work! In terms of functional network patterns, are there any sub-types among children or are they mostly common among children?
Hi Dan. Thank you for this question. This study was conducted in a sample of typically developing children so we do not have the data to speak to this. I agree with you though, it would be very interesting to see if and how network connectivity differed across different sub populations of children.
Hi Caroline, Thank you for your wonderful talk. I am wondering how did you determine different functional networks for fNIRS infant data? which functional brain atlas did you use?
Thank you for your interest in our work. We created the networks of interest by averaging the associations between cortical areas that are commonly considered to be part of the networks and that we had the ability to measure given our optode layout. In regards to your second point, there are newborn atlases available (see http://nist.mni.mcgill.ca/?p=1005).
Interesting talk! Right TPJ to left DLPFC? There would not be a direct connection, to my knowledge (I may be wrong). Do you think it is via other network?
yes, this must be just part of a bigger network. And of course, this is right TPJ in ppt A to left dlPFC in ppt B, so there is motor + behaviour + vision etc mediating the effects. we can’t expect a direct connection between two different brains.
Thanks. I missed they are on different brains! Interesting.
Posting on behalf of Dr Karla Holmboe: Given that this research was conducted in newborns, what does the higher fronto-parietal connectivity mean? (this network is usually associated with cognitive control)
This is a really interesting question. In the present study we find evidence to suggest that the Fronto-parietal network is already associated with regulatory behaviors (which at this age includes behaviors such as soothability and orienting to stimuli). We are currently following up with these infants and we are curious to see if these rudimentary functional connections are related to long term outcomes (including cognitive control).
Joy, I am very excited about this line of work. I am curious if you have tracked individual differences in experience. For example, with the disagreement vs agreement manipulation, does experience with such conversations (e.g., being a defense attorney) impact one’s brain response and similarly does knowledge of this experience shape their partner’s brain response.
Lovely experimental design! Can you see both EEG and fNIRS signal at a single subject level? Do you only see that in a group level?
Were the NIRS curves oxy or deoxy?
your combined EEG and fNIRS paradigm is really COOL!
Judit, I am thrilled to see a fNIRS many babies study. I would love to contribute to such efforts, however, with the pandemic I am hesitant to commit as we are unsure when infants will return to the lab. Do you have a particular timeline in mind?
Interesting! Can you comment about the laterality differences and what those differences might be based on?
Thanks Heather – great question – it seems that speech intelligibility is likely to be responsible for the left lateralised response, but in the experiment I showed it still possible that manipulations of the acoustic properties of the speech signal could account for those differences. We’ve done other experiments analysing ‘correct’ versus ‘incorrect’ trials using identical stimuli, that suggest that intelligibility, rather than the acoustic parameters were driving the lateralised response.
Interesting and promising application! As far as I know, hemodynamic reaction of hearing is pretty rapid. So, I might expect some temporal modulation at an early stage. Do you see such change?
Thanks Dan and interesting question. Yes we certainly see relatively rapid activation of temporal Cortex to auditory signals. Indeed in our paper (Wijayasiri et al 2017) published in Hearing research, we showed that auditory evoked responses peaked later in the left inferior frontal gurus (mean time to peak=6.7s) than in temporal cortex (mean time to peak =5.2s).
Hi Judit, Very interesting work. I wonder if you could expand on how your findings align with cochlear implant needs (i.e., the amplitude modulation issues you manipulated in the study you described and how you envision those findings are relevant/helpful to cochlear implant processing)? Thanks!!
Interesting experimental question! What do you think of the cause of red and blue differential effects on cognition? Does it reflect arousal level difference, maybe?
Nice talk. Would it be interesting to monitor also sensorimotor area instead of PFC (or together with PFC)?
Challenging experiments! How did you reduce motion artifacts? Did you use any special technique?