Cited by 161EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Clinical efficacy and potential mechanisms of neurofeedback

Niv, Sharon·2013·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.037

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niv, S.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Niv, Sharon
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
676-686
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995499220
Cited by
161
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 4
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
neurofeedback, clinical efficacy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, substance use disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, learning difficulties, neuroplasticity, global brain connectivity, default mode network, frontoparietal network, salience network, therapeutic mechanisms

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