Evaluation of attention and alertness with a stimulus-brain feedback loop

Mulholland, Thomas; Runnals, Sylvia

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(62)90134-7

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This notion is reinforced by recent observations by Zhigalov et al (2016) showing that closed-loop sensory stimulationusing visual flashes presented at peaks of alpha power-differentially modulates LRTCs during successive sessions of entrainment. This involuntary (i.e., bottom-up) method (Mulholland and Runnals 1962) contrasts interestingly with the voluntary (i.e., top-down) form of NFB based on selfregulation (Kamiya 2011).…”

Section: Long-range Dependence Versus Oscillation Amplitude: a Hiddenmentioning

confidence: 93%

Neurofeedback Tunes Scale-Free Dynamics in Spontaneous Brain Activity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain oscillations exhibit long-range temporal correlations (LRTCs), which reflect the regularity of their fluctuations: low values representing more random (decorrelated) while high values more persistent (correlated) dynamics. LRTCs constitute supporting evidence that the brain operates near criticality, a state where neuronal activities are balanced between order and randomness. Here, healthy adults used closed-loop brain training (neurofeedback, NFB) to reduce the amplitude of alpha oscillations, producing a significant increase in spontaneous LRTCs post-training. This effect was reproduced in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, where abnormally random dynamics were reversed by NFB, correlating with significant improvements in hyperarousal. Notably, regions manifesting abnormally low LRTCs (i.e., excessive randomness) normalized toward healthy population levels, consistent with theoretical predictions about selforganized criticality. Hence, when exposed to appropriate training, spontaneous cortical activity reveals a residual capacity for "self-tuning" its own temporal complexity, despite manifesting the abnormal dynamics seen in individuals with psychiatric disorder. Lastly, we observed an inverse-U relationship between strength of LRTC and oscillation amplitude, suggesting a breakdown of long-range dependence at high/low synchronization extremes, in line with recent computational models. Together, our findings offer a broader mechanistic framework for motivating research and clinical applications of NFB, encompassing disorders with perturbed LRTCs.

show abstract

Section: Long-range Dependence Versus Oscillation Amplitude: a Hiddenmentioning

confidence: 93%

Neurofeedback Tunes Scale-Free Dynamics in Spontaneous Brain Activity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to statistical and experimental methods to control variability, Mulholland and Runnals (1962) used an innovative means of reducing unwanted variability in neuroscience experiments. These authors employed feedback methods to control the EEG's response to visual stimulation.…”

Section: Methods For Control Of Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Alpha-contingent EEG feedback reduces SPECT rCBF variability

McLaughlin

Steinberg

Mulholland

et al. 2005

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conditioning of EEG activity in man was first demonstrated by Adrian more than forty years ago (Adrian and Matthews, 1934;Durup, 1935) and soon afterwards Shagass (1941, 1942) demonstrated conditioning of occipital alpha rhythms in man. Subsequently, many workers have used biofeedback techniques to teach patients how to control alpha activity (Mulholland and Runnals, 1962; Figure 3-EEG biofeedback and trend analysis systems. Auditory and somatosensory (electric shock) stimulators are shown but other types of stimulus (e.g.…”

Section: Feedback Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biofeedback experiments began 74 years ago (Bair, 1901). Conditioning of EEG rhythms (Dump, 1935;Jasper and Shagass, 1941;Shagass, 1942;Mulholland and Runnals, 1962;Nowlis and Kamiya, 1970;Sacks et al, 1972) and the use of such techniques to modify epileptic activity (Sterman et al, 1969) are more recent developments. Attempts to inhibit or arrest seizures by physiological methods were made in the time of Galen (A.S. 131-201) and Aurelianus (1755) and in recent years there have been papers on the defence mechanisms used by patients to arrest or control focal seizures (Bures, 1953;Efron, 1956Efron, , 1957Symonds, 1961;Paulson, 1963).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%