The DOI matches its Crossref record; 211 of the 211 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neurofeedback with fMRI: A critical systematic review
Open accessAbstract
&NA; Neurofeedback relying on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI‐nf) heralds new prospects for self‐regulating brain and behavior. Here we provide the first comprehensive review of the fMRI‐nf literature and the first systematic database of fMRI‐nf findings. We synthesize information from 99 fMRI‐nf experiments—the bulk of currently available data. The vast majority of fMRI‐nf findings suggest that self‐regulation of specific brain signatures seems viable; however, replication of concomitant behavioral outcomes remains sparse. To disentangle placebo influences and establish the specific effects of neurofeedback, we highlight the need for double‐blind placebo‐controlled studies alongside rigorous and standardized statistical analyses. Before fMRI‐nf can join the clinical armamentarium, research must first confirm the sustainability, transferability, and feasibility of fMRI‐nf in patients as well as in healthy individuals. Whereas modulating specific brain activity promises to mold cognition, emotion, thought, and action, reducing complex mental health issues to circumscribed brain regions may represent a tenuous goal. We can certainly change brain activity with fMRI‐nf. However, it remains unclear whether such changes translate into meaningful behavioral improvements in the clinical domain. HighlightsWe conducted a systematic review of 99 fMRI neurofeedback (fMRI‐nf) experiments.fMRI‐nf successfully drives BOLD regulation and behavioral change.BOLD regulation guarantees neither neural regulation nor clinical improvement.Psychosocial factors may contribute to regulation of BOLD signal and behavior.Efficacy remains undetermined because few studies test for clinical significance.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 3×
“…in psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), and a hint at a similar trajectory for the neurosciences (Boekel et al., 2015; Button, 2016; Button et al., 2013), proponents of fMRI-nf would benefit greatly from pre-registering experiments and conducting confirmatory replication studies…”
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35084005 · Cited by 6,551
Cited by
Rubia, K., Criaud, M., Wulff, M., Alegria, A., Brinson, H., Barker, G., Stahl, D., & Giampietro, V. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.11.055 · Cited by 111
Zhao, Z., Yao, S., Li, K., Sindermann, C., Zhou, F., Zhao, W., Li, J., Lührs, M., Goebel, R., Kendrick, K. M., et al. (2019) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000496057 · Cited by 102
Neurofeedback for pain management: a systematic review
Roy, R., de la Vega, R., Jensen, M. P., & Miró, J. (2020) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00671 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Thibault, R. T., MacPherson, A., Lifshitz, M., Roth, R. R., & Raz, A.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 172
- Pages
- 786-807
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2776886600
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 211
- FWCI
- 2.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neurofeedback with fMRI: A critical systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.071
- The paper
- Thibault, R. T., MacPherson, A., Lifshitz, M., Roth, R. R., & Raz, A. (2018). Neurofeedback with fMRI: A critical systematic review. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.071
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.