Graded fMRI Neurofeedback Training of Motor Imagery in Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke Patients: A Preregistered Proof-of-Concept Study

Mehler, David M. A.; Williams, Angharad N.; Whittaker, Joseph R.; Krause, Florian; Lührs, Michael; Kunas, Stefanie L.; Wise, Richard G.; Shetty, H. G. M.; Turner, Duncan L.; Linden, David

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00226

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To make neurofeedback findings transparent and reliable, as well as to allow further collaboration between research groups, we strongly recommend that researchers explore and implement open science research practices where possible (Allen and Mehler, 2019;Nosek et al, 2015) by preregistering their study protocol and sharing the data that support their final results. Analytical degrees of freedom remain a controversial topic in neuroimaging (Botvinik-Nezer et al, 2020;Carp, 2012); real-time experiments already predeclare a substantial part of their analysis pipeline when setting parameters for real-time data analysis and it is hence in particular suited for study preregistration (e.g., Mehler et al (2020)) or publishable research protocols (e.g., Cox et al (2016)).…”

Section: I) Study Preregistration and Open Science Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Trambaiolli

Linden

Mehler

2021

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Neurofeedback training has been suggested as a potential additional treatment option for MDD patients not reaching remission from standard care (i.e., psychopharmacology and psychotherapy). Here we systematically reviewed neurofeedback studies employing electroencephalography, or functional magnetic resonance-based protocols in depressive patients. Of 585 initially screened studies, 24 were included in our final sample (N=480 patients in experimental and N=194 in the control groups completing the primary endpoint). We evaluated the clinical efficacy across studies and explored its relationship with the number of sessions as a potential proxy for a dose-effect response. We also attempted to group studies according to the control condition categories currently used in the field that affect clinical outcomes in group comparisons. In most studies, MDD patients showed symptom improvement superior to the control group(s). However, most articles did not comply with the most stringent study quality and reporting practices. We conclude with recommendations on best practices for experimental designs and reporting standards for neurofeedback training.

show abstract

Section: I) Study Preregistration and Open Science Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Trambaiolli

Linden

Mehler

2021

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…either for the alternative with BF10 4 10 (indicating strong evidence for a positive effect) or for the null with BF01 4 10 (indicating strong evidence for a null effect)or until the end of the data collection period (September 30, 2017) is reached.' (Mehler et al, 2017). This item is essential.…”

Section: Item 1b Justify Sample Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist)

Ros¹,

Enriquez‐Geppert²,

Zotev³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers can efficiently document design decisions, including the sampling and planned analyses, by publishing their protocols. These additional publishing formats include preregistration, where researchers document their methodology with a timestamp on a public platform such as the Open Science Framework before data acquisition starts (e.g., Mehler et al, 2017). An alternative approach is to publish trial protocols in dedicated journals, which may be undertaken in parallel to data acquisition (e.g., Cox et al, 2016).…”

Section: The Potential Of Fnirs For Neurofeedback Research -Future DImentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

Mehler¹,

Lührs²,

Thibault³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The effects of electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-neurofeedback on brain activation and behaviors have been studied extensively in the past. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback (fNIRS-neurofeedback). FNIRS is a functional neuroimaging technique based on brain hemodynamics, which is easy to use, portable, inexpensive, and has reduced sensitivity to movement artifacts.Method: We provide the first systematic review and database of fNIRS-neurofeedback studies, synthesizing findings from 22 peer-reviewed studies (including a total of N=441 participants; 337 healthy, 104 patients). We (1) give a comprehensive overview of how fNIRS-neurofeedback training protocols were implemented, (2) review the online signal-processing methods used, (3) evaluate the quality of studies using pre-set methodological and reporting quality criteria and also present statistical sensitivity/power analyses, (4) investigate the effectiveness of fNIRS-neurofeedback in modulating brain activation, and (5) review its effectiveness in changing behavior in healthy and pathological populations. Results and discussion: (1-2) Published studies are heterogeneous (e.g., neurofeedback targets, investigated populations, applied training protocols, and methods). (3) Large randomized controlled trials are still lacking. In view of the novelty of the field, the quality of the published studies is moderate. We identified room for improvement in reporting important information and statistical power to detect realistic effects. (4) Several studies show that people can regulate hemodynamic signals from cortical brain regions with fNIRS-neurofeedback and (5) these studies indicate the feasibility of modulating motor control and prefrontal brain functioning in healthy participants and ameliorating symptoms in clinical populations (stroke, ADHD, autism, and social anxiety). However, valid conclusions about specificity or potential clinical utility are premature. Conclusion: Due to the advantages of practicability and relatively low cost, fNIRS-neurofeedback might provide a suitable and powerful alternative to EEG and fMRI neurofeedback and has great potential for clinical translation of neurofeedback. Together with more rigorous research and reporting practices, further methodological improvements may lead to a more solid understanding of fNIRS-neurofeedback. Future research will benefit from exploiting the advantages of fNIRS, which offers unique opportunities for neurofeedback research.

show abstract

Graded fMRI Neurofeedback Training of Motor Imagery in Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke Patients: A Preregistered Proof-of-Concept Study

Cited by 21 publications

References 99 publications

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices

Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist)

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About