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

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Marta Korom, University of Delaware; Catalina M Camacho, Washington University; Courtney A Filippi, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda; Roxane Licandro, TU Wien; Lucille A Moore, Oregon Health and Science University; Alexander Dufford, Yale School of Medicine; Lilla Zöllei, Massachusetts General Hospital; Alice M Graham, Oregon Health and Science University; Marisa Spann, Columbia University; Brittany Howell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; Sarah Shultz, Emory University; Dustin Scheinost, Yale School of Medicine
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-02-01
• Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2021 The Authors
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
• Volume: 53
• Start Page: 101055
• End Page: 101055
• Keywords: MR-IMAGES; HEMODYNAMIC-RESPONSES; Science & Technology; Social Sciences; WHITE-MATTER DEVELOPMENT; EARLY-CHILDHOOD; BRAIN-DEVELOPMENT; Psychology, Developmental; Baby; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; Neurosciences & Neurology; MRI safety; MRI processing; Brain development; STRUCTURAL MRI; MRI acquisition; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Psychology; AUTOMATIC SEGMENTATION; ACOUSTIC NOISE; FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY; Neurosciences; FIT'NG
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Mental Health; Health Sciences, Radiology

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.