The Brain-Mind Gap: How fNIRS Technology Could Bridge Objective Measurement and Subjective Experience in Mental Health

Emerging technologies, such as functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy, offer in-office real-time monitoring for potential clinical application

Grant H Brenner / Flux-Pro-1.1-Ultra

One of psychiatry’s enduring challenges is that we treat disorders of the mind while having limited windows into the brain’s real-time functioning. Unlike cardiology, where we can watch the heart beat and measure its electrical activity moment by moment, mental health clinicians have traditionally worked without dynamic neurobiological feedback. We rely on subjective reports, behavioral observations, and occasional static brain scans that offer snapshots rather than movies of neural activity, outside of research settings. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) represents a potential bridge across this explanatory gap — not as a magic solution, but as a tool that could enhance our understanding of how brain activity patterns relate to mental states and treatment response. And newer fNIRS devices are sophisticated, portable, high-resolution, and provide user-friendly dashboards to enable smooth integration into clinical flow.

Understanding fNIRS: How Light Reveals Brain Activity

At its core, fNIRS operates on a elegantly simple principle: blood carrying oxygen looks different from blood without oxygen when you shine near-infrared light through it. The technology works by placing light sources and detectors on the scalp. These emit near-infrared light (typically at wavelengths between 650–950 nanometers) that can penetrate through the skull and into the brain’s outer layers, reaching depths of about 2–3 centimeters into cortical tissue.

As this light travels through brain tissue, it interacts differently with oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (HbR). Each form of hemoglobin has distinct absorption properties at different wavelengths — oxygenated blood absorbs more light at certain wavelengths while deoxygenated blood absorbs more at others. By measuring how much light is absorbed versus how much returns to the detectors, fNIRS can calculate the concentrations of both HbO and HbR in the underlying brain tissue.

When neurons become active, they consume oxygen from the blood, initially causing a small dip in oxygenation. This triggers a compensatory response where blood vessels dilate and blood flow increases to the active region, delivering fresh oxygen. This surge typically overshoots the actual oxygen demand, creating a characteristic pattern: increased HbO and decreased HbR in active brain regions. This neurovascular coupling — the relationship between neural activity and blood flow changes — allows fNIRS to infer which brain areas are working harder during specific tasks or mental states.

It’s crucial to understand that increased blood flow doesn’t simply equal “better” or “worse” mental health. The meaning lies in patterns, networks, and context. Research has established that different psychiatric conditions show distinct hemodynamic signatures during cognitive tasks. Meta-analyses reveal that individuals with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder exhibit characteristic patterns of prefrontal and frontotemporal hypoactivation during verbal fluency and executive function tasks.[1,2] However, these are group-level findings with considerable individual variation — a reminder that biological measures complement rather than replace comprehensive clinical assessment.

The technology’s advantages include portability, tolerance to movement, and safety for repeated use. Unlike fMRI, which requires complete stillness in a confined space, fNIRS users can wear a cap-like device while engaging in naturalistic behaviors. This opens possibilities for ecological validity that traditional neuroimaging cannot achieve.

Enhancing Therapeutic Understanding

Rather than imagining therapists watching brain scans during sessions — which could disrupt therapeutic presence — fNIRS’s real value in psychotherapy lies in between-session analysis and treatment planning. The technology could validate whether specific interventions engage their hypothesized neural mechanisms. Does cognitive restructuring actually strengthen prefrontal regulatory circuits? Is exposure therapy achieving habituation at a neural level, or merely behavioral compliance? What is happening in the cortex during insight-orient depth psychodynamic therapy?

Studies exploring fNIRS for neurofeedback interventions show promise.[7,8] Patients learning to regulate their own brain activity through real-time feedback represent a fascinating convergence of ancient contemplative practices and modern neuroscience. This isn’t about reducing mental health to brain states, but about providing additional tools for self-regulation. The therapeutic relationship remains central; technology simply offers another window into the change process.

Consider how fNIRS could inform treatment of trauma-related disorders. By measuring prefrontal-limbic connectivity patterns (within the limits of cortical measurement), clinicians could better understand whether a patient’s emotional regulation circuits are strengthening over time. This objective feedback could guide decisions about pacing trauma work or integrating stabilization techniques.

Precision in Psychiatric Medication

The trial-and-error nature of psychiatric prescribing frustrates patients and clinicians alike. fNIRS offers potential for more informed medication selection and monitoring, though we must be careful not to oversell its current capabilities. Pharmaco-fNIRS studies are beginning to show how different medications affect cortical hemodynamics, but disentangling direct drug effects from downstream changes remains challenging.[4,5]

Research demonstrates that fNIRS can detect treatment response patterns before symptomatic improvement becomes apparent. A systematic review of fNIRS applications in monitoring psychiatric treatment found that changes in prefrontal activation during cognitive tasks could predict antidepressant response weeks before clinical improvement.[4] This could reduce the lengthy trials currently needed to establish medication efficacy.

Diagnostic differentiation represents another frontier. While conditions like bipolar disorder and major depression can present similarly clinically, fNIRS studies have identified distinct hemodynamic patterns during cognitive tasks.[2,6] Researchers using fNIRS for diagnostic assistance in psychiatric populations achieved promising classification accuracy, though significant overlap between conditions remains a challenge.[6] Machine learning approaches are improving our ability to identify subtle pattern differences, with some studies achieving four-class classification of neuropsychiatric disorders with clinically relevant accuracy.[7]

Optimizing Neuromodulation Therapies

Brain stimulation treatments like TMS have shown efficacy for treatment-resistant depression, but response rates remain variable. fNIRS could serve as both a targeting system and a response monitor for these interventions. By mapping individual brain activity patterns before treatment, clinicians could identify optimal stimulation sites — accounting for anatomical variation that one-size-fits-all protocols miss.

During treatment, fNIRS could confirm target engagement. Is the stimulation actually modulating activity in the intended networks? Early studies suggest that fNIRS-identified “responder” patterns could predict who will benefit from lengthy TMS protocols, potentially sparing non-responders weeks of ineffective treatment.[4] The technology could also guide newer approaches like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or focused ultrasound, where precise targeting is essential.

The network perspective is crucial here. Mental health conditions increasingly appear to involve disrupted connectivity between brain regions rather than simple over- or under-activation of specific areas. fNIRS’s ability to measure functional connectivity — how different cortical regions coordinate their activity — provides insights into these network-level disruptions that single-region activation measures miss.

Supporting Neurobehavioral Feedback Loops

The relationship between lifestyle factors and mental health is well-established, but adherence to behavioral interventions remains challenging. fNIRS could provide objective evidence of how exercise, meditation, sleep hygiene, and social connection affect brain function, potentially enhancing motivation through visible progress.

Consider exercise as medicine for depression. While we know that aerobic exercise can be as effective as antidepressants for some individuals, we don’t know who will respond or what “dose” is optimal. fNIRS studies could reveal how different exercise intensities and durations affect prefrontal-limbic dynamics, enabling personalized exercise prescriptions. Seeing one’s brain literally change with exercise could itself become therapeutic — a neurobehavioral feedback loop where awareness of neural changes reinforces healthy behaviors.

The technology shows particular promise for pediatric populations, where traditional neuroimaging is challenging and early intervention is crucial.[10] Adolescents skeptical of traditional mental health approaches might engage more readily with technology-based interventions that provide objective feedback about their brain’s response to various coping strategies.

Integration, Ethics, and Access

As fNIRS technology matures, its integration with digital therapeutics and wearable devices could enable continuous monitoring of neural states outside clinical settings. Imagine therapeutic apps that adjust interventions based on real-time cortical activity, or wearables that alert users to emerging stress patterns before subjective awareness. However, this raises important neuroethical questions: What does it mean to make unconscious brain processes visible? How do we protect neural privacy while enabling beneficial monitoring?

The economic implications deserve consideration. While fNIRS devices are less expensive than MRI scanners, they still require significant investment. Could this technology reduce healthcare disparities by providing objective psychiatric assessment in underserved areas, or might it create new inequalities between those with and without access to brain-based diagnostics? The answer likely depends on how we implement and regulate these tools.

Clinical Reality and Future Directions

Current limitations must be acknowledged. fNIRS cannot measure subcortical structures like the amygdala, hippocampus, or striatum — regions central to many psychiatric conditions. The technology is limited to measuring cortical regions within 2–3 centimeters of the skull surface. Methodological variability across studies and lack of standardized protocols limit clinical adoption.[4,13] The technology provides correlational, not causal, information about brain-behavior relationships.

Yet within these constraints, fNIRS offers something valuable: a practical tool for repeated, naturalistic measurement of cortical function. As part of the NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, which seeks to understand mental health through biological dimensions rather than categorical diagnoses, fNIRS could help identify transdiagnostic neural markers that cut across traditional diagnostic boundaries.

Recent developments in machine learning and signal processing are rapidly improving our ability to extract clinically meaningful information from fNIRS data. Combined with other assessment modalities — clinical interviews, behavioral observations, digital phenotyping — fNIRS could contribute to truly personalized psychiatric care.

Bridging Subjective and Objective Realms

fNIRS won’t solve psychiatry’s complexities, nor should we expect it to. The subjective experience of mental suffering cannot be reduced to hemodynamic patterns, and the therapeutic relationship remains irreplaceable. But as a bridge between subjective experience and objective measurement, fNIRS offers new ways to understand and validate both patient experiences and treatment effects.

As we learn to walk this bridge skillfully — maintaining humanity while embracing technology, respecting subjective experience while seeking objective markers — we may find new ways to understand and alleviate psychological suffering. The goal isn’t to replace clinical wisdom with brain scans, but to enhance our understanding of how neural processes relate to mental health, one wavelength of light at a time.

The integration of fNIRS into mental health care represents neither revolution nor panacea, but rather evolution — a gradual enhancement of our ability to see, understand, and help. In bridging the brain-mind gap, we don’t diminish the mystery of consciousness but rather gain new tools for addressing its disruptions. For clinicians, researchers, and most importantly, for those seeking help, this — and other emerging technology — offers not answers but better questions . We always need better questions.

References

1. Ehlis AC, Schneider S, Dresler T, Fallgatter AJ. Application of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Psychiatry. NeuroImage. 2014;85 Pt 1:478–88. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.067.
2. Yeung MK, Lin J. Probing Depression, Schizophrenia, and Other Psychiatric Disorders Using fNIRS and the Verbal Fluency Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2021;140:416–435. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.06.015.
3. Chou PH, Huang CJ, Sun CW. The Potential Role of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy as Clinical Biomarkers in Schizophrenia. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2020;26(2):201–217. doi:10.2174/1381612825666191014164511.
4. Bǎcilǎ CI, Marcu GM, Vintilă BI, et al. Applications of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) in Monitoring Treatment Response in Psychiatry: A Scoping Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(15):5197. doi:10.3390/jcm14155197.
5. Ho CSH, Lim LJH, Lim AQ, et al. Diagnostic and Predictive Applications of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy for Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2020;11:378. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00378.
6. Wei Y, Chen Q, Curtin A, et al. Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) as a Tool to Assist the Diagnosis of Major Psychiatric Disorders in a Chinese Population. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 2021;271(4):745–757. doi:10.1007/s00406–020–01125-y.
7. Erdoğan SB, Yükselen G. Four-Class Classification of Neuropsychiatric Disorders by Use of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Derived Biomarkers. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;22(14):5407. doi:10.3390/s22145407.
8. Flanagan K, Saikia MJ. Consumer-Grade Electroencephalogram and Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Neurofeedback Technologies for Mental Health and Wellbeing. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2023;23(20):8482. doi:10.3390/s23208482.
9. Devezas MÂM. Shedding Light on Neuroscience: Two Decades of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Applications and Advances From a Bibliometric Perspective. Journal of Neuroimaging : Official Journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 2021;31(4):641–655. doi:10.1111/jon.12877.
10. Chen WL, Wagner J, Heugel N, et al. Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Its Clinical Application in the Field of Neuroscience: Advances and Future Directions. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2020;14:724. doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00724.
11. Rahman MA, Siddik AB, Ghosh TK, Khanam F, Ahmad M. A Narrative Review on Clinical Applications of fNIRS. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2020;33(5):1167–1184. doi:10.1007/s10278–020–00387–1.
12. Kim HY, Seo K, Jeon HJ, Lee U, Lee H. Application of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to the Study of Brain Function in Humans and Animal Models. Molecules and Cells. 2017;40(8):523–532. doi:10.14348/molcells.2017.0153.
13. Obrig H. NIRS in Clinical Neurology — A ‘Promising’ Tool? NeuroImage. 2014;85 Pt 1:535–46. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.045.