CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 399EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf checklist)

Open access
Ros, Tomas, Enriquez-Geppert, Stefanie, Zotev, Vadim, Young, Kymberly D, Wood, Guilherme, Whitfield-Gabrieli, Susan, Wan, Feng, Vuilleumier, Patrik, Vialatte, François, Van De Ville, Dimitri, Todder, Doron, Surmeli, Tanju, Sulzer, James S, Strehl, Ute, Sterman, Maurice Barry, Steiner, Naomi J, Sorger, Bettina, Soekadar, Surjo R, Sitaram, Ranganatha, Sherlin, Leslie H, Schönenberg, Michael, Scharnowski, Frank, Schabus, Manuel, Rubia, Katya, Rosa, Agostinho, Reiner, Miriam, Pineda, Jaime A, Paret, Christian, Ossadtchi, Alexei, Nicholson, Andrew A, Nan, Wenya, Minguez, Javier, Micoulaud-Franchi, Jean-Arthur, Mehler, David M A, Lührs, Michael, Lubar, Joel, Lotte, Fabien, Linden, David E J, Lewis-Peacock, Jarrod A, Lebedev, Mikhail A, Lanius, Ruth A, Kübler, Andrea, Kranczioch, Cornelia, Koush, Yury, Konicar, Lilian, Kohl, Simon H, Kober, Silivia E, Klados, Manousos A, Jeunet, Camille, Janssen, T W P, Huster, Rene J, Hoedlmoser, Kerstin, Hirshberg, Laurence M, Heunis, Stephan, Hendler, Talma, Hampson, Michelle, Guggisberg, Adrian G, Guggenberger, Robert, Gruzelier, John H, Göbel, Rainer W, Gninenko, Nicolas, Gharabaghi, Alireza, Frewen, Paul, Fovet, Thomas, Fernández, Thalía, Escolano, Carlos, Ehlis, Ann-Christine, Drechsler, Renate, Christopher deCharms, R, Debener, Stefan, De Ridder, Dirk, Davelaar, Eddy J, Congedo, Marco, Cavazza, Marc, Breteler, Marinus H M, Brandeis, Daniel, Bodurka, Jerzy, Birbaumer, Niels, Bazanova, Olga M, Barth, Beatrix, Bamidis, Panagiotis D, Auer, Tibor, Arns, Martijn, Thibault, Robert T·2020·Brain
DOI 10.1093/brain/awaa009PMC PMC7296848

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Neurofeedback has begun to attract the attention and scrutiny of the scientific and medical mainstream. Here, neurofeedback researchers present a consensus-derived checklist that aims to improve the reporting and experimental design standards in the field.

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 · 10.1093/brain/awaa009

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Multiple mechanisms drive the effects of neurofeedback training. Neurofeedback participants may benefit from: (i) the specific neurophysiological process of training a particular brain signal (green). Non-specific factors, including (ii) those unique to the neurofeedback environment (e.g. trainer-participant interaction in a neurotechnology context) (dark blue); and (iii) those that are common across interventions (e.g. all other benefits from engaging in a form of cognitive training as well as the psychosocial and placebo mechanisms related to participating in an experiment) (light blue). (iv) Repetition-related effects (purple). (v) Natural effects, which can be positive (e.g. cognitive development in childhood) or negative (e.g. cognitive decline in older age) (orange). These mechanisms may interact synergistically to create a greater overall effect, interact antagonistically to lessen the total benefit, or combine additively (for a discussion of this topic, see Rothman, 1974; Finnerup et al., 2010). By including control groups, carefully designing experiments, and measuring both brain activity and behaviour, researchers can better estimate the contribution from each of these mechanisms.
Figure 1 Multiple mechanisms drive the effects of neurofeedback training. Neurofeedback participants may benefit from: (i) the specific neurophysiological process of training a particular brain signal (green). Non-specific factors, including (ii) those unique to the neurofeedback environment (e.g. trainer-participant interaction in a neurotechnology context) (dark blue); and (iii) those that are common across interventions (e.g. all other benefits from engaging in a form of cognitive training as well as the psychosocial and placebo mechanisms related to participating in an experiment) (light blue). (iv) Repetition-related effects (purple). (v) Natural effects, which can be positive (e.g. cognitive development in childhood) or negative (e.g. cognitive decline in older age) (orange). These mechanisms may interact synergistically to create a greater overall effect, interact antagonistically to lessen the total benefit, or combine additively (for a discussion of this topic, see Rothman, 1974; Finnerup et al., 2010). By including control groups, carefully designing experiments, and measuring both brain activity and behaviour, researchers can better estimate the contribution from each of these mechanisms.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf) best practices checklist 2020. An online tool to complete this checklist is available at rtfin.org/CREDnf. Darker shaded boxes represent ‘essential’ checklist items; lightly shaded boxes represent ‘encouraged’ checklist items. We recommend using this checklist in conjunction with the standardized CRED-nf online tool (rtfin.org/CREDnf) and the CRED-nf article, which explains the motivation behind this checklist and provides details regarding many of the checklist items.
Figure 2 Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive-behavioural neurofeedback studies (CRED-nf) best practices checklist 2020. An online tool to complete this checklist is available at rtfin.org/CREDnf. Darker shaded boxes represent ‘essential’ checklist items; lightly shaded boxes represent ‘encouraged’ checklist items. We recommend using this checklist in conjunction with the standardized CRED-nf online tool (rtfin.org/CREDnf) and the CRED-nf article, which explains the motivation behind this checklist and provides details regarding many of the checklist items.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 72 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 399

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ros, T., Enriquez-Geppert, S., Zotev, V., Young, K. D., Wood, G., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Wan, F., Vuilleumier, P., Vialatte, F., Van De Ville, D., Todder, D., Surmeli, T., Sulzer, J. S., Strehl, U., Sterman, M. B., Steiner, N. J., Sorger, B., Soekadar, S. R., Sitaram, R., Sherlin, L. H., Schönenberg, M., Scharnowski, F., Schabus, M., Rubia, K., Rosa, A., Reiner, M., Pineda, J. A., Paret, C., Ossadtchi, A., Nicholson, A. A., Nan, W., Minguez, J., Micoulaud-Franchi, J.-A., Mehler, D. M. A., Lührs, M., Lubar, J., Lotte, F., Linden, D. E. J., Lewis-Peacock, J. A., Lebedev, M. A., Lanius, R. A., Kübler, A., Kranczioch, C., Koush, Y., Konicar, L., Kohl, S. H., Kober, S. E., Klados, M. A., Jeunet, C., Janssen, T. W. P., Huster, R. J., Hoedlmoser, K., Hirshberg, L. M., Heunis, S., Hendler, T., Hampson, M., Guggisberg, A. G., Guggenberger, R., Gruzelier, J. H., Göbel, R. W., Gninenko, N., Gharabaghi, A., Frewen, P., Fovet, T., Fernández, T., Escolano, C., Ehlis, A.-C., Drechsler, R., Christopher deCharms, R., Debener, S., De Ridder, D., Davelaar, E. J., Congedo, M., Cavazza, M., Breteler, M. H. M., Brandeis, D., Bodurka, J., Birbaumer, N., Bazanova, O. M., Barth, B., Bamidis, P. D., Auer, T., Arns, M., & Thibault, R. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Graz (AT)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
  • University of Macau (MO)
  • Institut PiPsy, Draveil, France
  • Institute of Bioengineering, Center for Neuroprosthetics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL); Campus Biotech, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Living Health Center for Research and Education, Istanbul, Turkey
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Stiftung Charité (DE)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Ottawa University (US)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
  • Shanghai Normal University (CN)
  • Bitbrain®, Zaragoza, Spain
  • SANPSY, USR 3413, Université Bordeaux, CHU de Bordeaux, Place Amelie Raba Leon, Bordeaux, France
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (IL)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • Goldsmiths University of London (GB)
  • Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • UNAM Institute of Neurobiology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Juriquilla, Mexico
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Omneuron, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA
  • Department of Surgery, Section of Neurosurgery, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
  • Institut polytechnique de Grenoble (FR)
  • University of Greenwich (GB)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Institute of Physiology and Basic Medicine (RU)
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • Brainclinics (NL)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Ros, Tomas
  • Thibault, Robert T
ORCID
Venue
Brain
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-03-16
Volume
143
Issue
6
Pages
1674-1685
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
DOI
10.1093/brain/awaa009
PMC
PMC7296848
OpenAlex
W2984032218
Cited by
399
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 39
FWCI
26.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec
  • Center for Bioelectric Interfaces National Research University Higher School of Economics
  • Russian Federation Government (14.641.31.0003)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
neurofeedback, reporting guidelines, experimental design
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Research Design, Peer Review, Research, Checklist, 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