Cited by 77Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

fMRI feedback enhances emotion regulation as evidenced by a reduced amygdala response

Sarkheil, Pegah, Zilverstand, Anna, Kilian-Hütten, Niclas, Schneider, Frank, Goebel, Rainer, Mathiak, Klaus·2015·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Deficits in emotion regulation are a prominent feature of psychiatric conditions and a promising target for treatment. For instance, cognitive reappraisal is regarded as an effective strategy for emotion regulation. Neurophysiological models have established the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) as a key structure in the regulation of emotion processing through modulations of emotion-eliciting structures such as the amygdala. Feedback of the LPFC activity by real-time functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) may thus enhance the efficacy of cognitive reappraisal. During cognitive reappraisal of aversive visual stimuli, LPFC activity was fed back to the experimental group, whereas control participants received no such information. As a result, during reappraisal, amygdala activity was lower in the experimental group than in the controls. Furthermore, an increase of inter-hemispheric functional connectivity emerged in the feedback group. The current study extends the neurofeedback literature by suggesting that fMRI feedback can modify brain activity during a given task.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.11.027

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sarkheil, P., Zilverstand, A., Kilian-Hütten, N., Schneider, F., Goebel, R., & Mathiak, K.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (DE)
Corresponding author
Sarkheil, Pegah
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
281
Pages
326-332
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126949823
Cited by
77
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministerie van Economische Zaken
  • Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (MA2631/6-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
fMRI neurofeedback, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, lateral prefrontal cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Emotions, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Visual Perception, Case-Control Studies, 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