Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

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 access
Thibault, Robert T., MacPherson, Amanda, Lifshitz, Michael, Roth, Raquel R., Raz, Amir·2018·NeuroImage

Abstract

&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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.071

Cites

211 of 211 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 211 references

Cited by

See all 312

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.