“…Therefore, with respect to other functional neuroimaging methods such as fMRI, fNIRS represents an useful tool for neuroergonomics research (for review, see Ayaz et al, 2013 ; Derosière et al, 2013 ), for studies in other fields of neuroscience such as brain-computer interface (for review, see Naseer and Hong, 2015 ), human-robot interaction (for review, see Canning and Scheutz, 2013 ), and cognitive states measurements (for review, see Strait and Scheutz, 2014 ). In addition, very recently the integration of fNIRS with a wearable technology, such as Google Glass, has been demonstrated (Afergan et al, 2015 ). For an adequate understanding of the current findings, some limitations should be pointed out: (1) this study has been conducted in a small sample of healthy young male adults subjects and the subjective cognitive load was not tested by NASA Task Load Index; (2) the duration of the adopted task and the length of the route were relatively short, hence, the effect of a longer duration of the VR HCT on the PFC hemodynamic response remains unknown; (3) this study did not imply a control session for example including/not including motor task with/without VR; (4) this study did not contemplate repeated trials on separate days in order to verify the reproducibility and the potential learning effect of the HCT; (5) the limited number of measurement points (16) made possible by the utilized fNIRS system did not allow the investigation of the supposed connectivity between the PFC and other cortical areas (e.g., premotor and motor cortices) likely involved in performing HCT; and (6) this study did not take into account the impact of the variability of the skull thickness amongst the 16 measurement points within subject and amongst subjects.…”