fNIRS Hemodynamic Alterations in Developmental and Acquired Language Disorders and Dyslexia: An Exploratory Transdiagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Language disorders and dyslexia are associated with atypical language- and reading-related processing, but findings from functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) studies remain heterogeneous. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized existing fNIRS evidence, quantified hemodynamic differences relative to controls, and examined whether different outcomes showed different levels of consistency.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched through 9 January 2026. Eligible studies included individuals with language disorders or dyslexia assessed using fNIRS, with outcomes reported as oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO), deoxygenated hemoglobin (HbR), β estimates, or other hemoglobin-based measures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed when sufficient quantitative data were available, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses conducted where feasible.

Results

A total of 830 records were identified, of which 10 publications comprising 11 independent samples met the inclusion criteria. HbO was the only outcome to show a statistically significant overall between-group difference, with lower HbO in the experimental groups than in controls (SMD = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.11], p = 0.017), although heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 58.6%). In contrast, pooled results for HbR and β were not statistically significant and showed weaker stability across analyses. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not provide sufficient evidence to support disorder category, region of interest (ROI), or outcome metric type as stable explanations for effect size variation.

Conclusions

Among the included fNIRS measures, HbO showed comparatively more consistent cross-study evidence than HbR or β. However, because the HbO estimate pooled clinically distinct dyslexia and acquired language-disorder studies within a limited evidence base, it should be interpreted as a preliminary cross-diagnostic signal rather than as evidence of a shared disease continuum or common underlying mechanism.