Cited by 90EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

How feedback, motor imagery, and reward influence brain self‐regulation using real‐time fMRI

Open access
Sepulveda, Pradyumna, Sitaram, Ranganatha, Rana, Mohit, Montalba, Cristian, Tejos, Cristian, Ruiz, Sergio·2016·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

The learning process involved in achieving brain self‐regulation is presumed to be related to several factors, such as type of feedback, reward, mental imagery, duration of training, among others. Explicitly instructing participants to use mental imagery and monetary reward are common practices in real‐time fMRI (rtfMRI) neurofeedback (NF), under the assumption that they will enhance and accelerate the learning process. However, it is still not clear what the optimal strategy is for improving volitional control. We investigated the differential effect of feedback, explicit instructions and monetary reward while training healthy individuals to up‐regulate the blood‐oxygen‐level dependent (BOLD) signal in the supplementary motor area (SMA). Four groups were trained in a two‐day rtfMRI‐NF protocol: G F with NF only, G F,I with NF + explicit instructions (motor imagery), G F,R with NF + monetary reward, and G F,I,R with NF + explicit instructions (motor imagery) + monetary reward. Our results showed that G F increased significantly their BOLD self‐regulation from day‐1 to day‐2 and G F,R showed the highest BOLD signal amplitude in SMA during the training. The two groups who were instructed to use motor imagery did not show a significant learning effect over the 2 days. The additional factors, namely motor imagery and reward, tended to increase the intersubject variability in the SMA during the course of training. Whole brain univariate and functional connectivity analyses showed common as well as distinct patterns in the four groups, representing the varied influences of feedback, reward, and instructions on the brain.Hum Brain Mapp 37:3153–3171, 2016. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.23228

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No explicit strategies or instructions were given because implicit strategies have been shown to produce better outcomes.

    “Notably, no explicit strategies or instructions were given as, with few exceptions [204], implicit strategies have been shown to produce better outcomes [205–210].”

    From Infraslow closed-loop brain training for anxiety and depression (ISAD): a protocol for a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot trial in adult females with internalizing disorders (2022) · cites this paper as [205]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) reports a significant learning effect with feedback alone but no consistent evidence that explicit motor-imagery instructions enhanced self-regulation. That supports the rationale for omitting strategy instructions, but the paper says the effect of explicit instructions remains uncertain; it does not establish that implicit strategies generally produce better outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sepulveda, P., Sitaram, R., Rana, M., Montalba, C., Tejos, C., & Ruiz, S.
Affiliations
  • Biomedical Imaging Center Pontificia Universidad Católica De Chile Santiago Chile
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Laboratory of Brain‐Machine Interfaces and Neuromodulation Pontificia Universidad Católica De Chile Santiago Chile
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-06
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
3153-3171
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W2413308320
Cited by
90
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • New INDIGO
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01DQ13004)
  • Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (Anillo ACT1416, ACT 1416)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
real-time fMRI neurofeedback, brain self-regulation, motor imagery, monetary rewards, explicit instruction, supplementary motor area, volitional control, functional connectivity, interindividual variability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reward, Imagery, Psychotherapy, Young Adult, Neurofeedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review