Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb:53:101055.
doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055. Epub 2021 Dec 27.

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

Marta Korom  1 , M Catalina Camacho  2 , Courtney A Filippi  3 , Roxane Licandro  4 , Lucille A Moore  5 , Alexander Dufford  6 , Lilla Zöllei  7 , Alice M Graham  5 , Marisa Spann  8 , Brittany Howell  9 ; FIT’NG; Sarah Shultz  10 , Dustin Scheinost  11
Affiliations

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

Marta Korom et al. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT'NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging.

Keywords: Baby; Brain development; FIT’NG; MRI acquisition; MRI processing; MRI safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagram of infant hearing protection devices (HPDs) commonly used in research MRI scanning. Ear plugs are inserted into the infant’s ear, reducing noise levels by 15–30 dB. On top of the earplugs, sound attenuating foam can further reduce exposure by approximately 7 dB. Finally, passive MR-compatible earmuffs or MR-compatible active noise canceling headphones further dampen sounds by up to 37 and 60 dB, respectively. Sound attenuating foam can be placed between the head and the coil, or on the walls of the MRI tunnel. Sandbags (or padding) can be placed on the scanner bed or around the head coil to secure the infant, hold equipment in place, and reduce scanner table vibration during imaging (see Q5).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Immobilization approaches common for infant scanning. A. Swaddling the infant in an MRI-safe wrap or blanket; B. A vacuum immobilizer on an infant up close (B1) and on the scanner bed with leads attached for external monitoring (B2). C. A strap that prevents awake or older infants from rolling off the table (swaddle is optional).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
T1- and T2-weighted image contrast from the same individual across the first two postnatal years (scanned at 3, 9, and 12months).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abujarir R., Salama H., Greer W., Al Thani M., Visda F. The impact of earmuffs on vital signs in the neonatal intensive care unit. J. Neonatal Perinat. Med. 2012;5(3):249–259. doi: 10.3233/npm-2012-57511. - DOI
    1. Adamson C.L., Alexander B., Ball G., Beare R., Cheong J.L.Y., Spittle A.J., Thompson D.K. Parcellation of the neonatal cortex using Surface-based Melbourne Children’s Regional Infant Brain atlases (M-CRIB-S) Sci. Rep. 2020;10(1) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61326-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adibpour P., Dubois J., Dehaene-Lambertz G. Right but not left hemispheric discrimination of faces in infancy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2017;2(1):67–79. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0249-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aeby A., De Tiege X., Creuzil M., David P., Baleriaux D., Van Overmeire B., Van Bogaert P. Language development at 2 years is correlated to brain microstructure in the left superior temporal gyrus at term equivalent age: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuroimage. 2013;78:145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.076. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Almli C.R., Rivkin M.J., Mckinstry R.C. The NIH MRI study of normal brain development (Objective-2): newborns, infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Neuroimage. 2007;35(1):308–325. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.058. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types