Cited by 26Sport Psychology and PerformanceEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesSports and Physical Education Research

The Effect of EEG Neurofeedback Training on Sport Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Open access
Yu, Chien‐Lin, Cheng, Ming‐Yang, An, Xin, Chueh, Ting‐Yu, Wu, Jia‐Hao, Wang, Kuo‐Pin, Hung, Tsung‐Min·2025·Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports

Abstract

Neurofeedback training (NFT) has emerged as a promising technique for enhancing sports performance by enabling individuals to self‐regulate their neural activity. However, only 53% of the 13 included studies, all of which published before 2021, in the latest meta‐analyses of NFT and motor performance focused on motor performance outcomes. Due to the rapid development of neurofeedback, 8 high‐quality articles were published in 2023–2024 alone. Therefore, there is a need for a new meta‐analysis to update the impact of NFT on sports performance. In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we have not only reassessed the knowledge of the effect of EEG neurofeedback in motor performance but have also incorporated a standardized methodology, known as the CRED‐nf checklist (Consensus on the reporting and experimental design of clinical and cognitive‐behavioral neurofeedback studies), for methodological evaluation of previous EEG neurofeedback studies. The study protocol was pre‐registered, and a systematic search was conducted across major databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A total of 25 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, with 21 studies eligible for the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis revealed a moderate positive effect of NFT on sport motor tasks, with a Hedges's g of 0.78 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.49–1.07. Importantly, subgroup analyses showed that studies with higher methodological quality scores, as assessed by the CRED‐nf checklist, had significantly larger effect sizes (Hedges's g = 1.07) compared to lower than median studies (Hedges's g = 0.49). This finding highlights the importance of addressing key methodological gaps, such as reporting on participant strategies, data processing methods, and the relationship between regulation success and behavioral outcomes. In conclusion, NFT showcases a moderate positive impact on sport motor task, particularly when high‐quality methodologies are employed, as assessed by the CRED‐nf checklist, underscoring the importance of rigorous study designs in future research.

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 · 10.1111/sms.70055

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Neurofeedback allows athletes to monitor and regulate brain activity, enhancing emotional control in high-pressure situations.

    “Neurofeedback allows athletes to monitor and regulate brain activity, enhancing emotional control in high-pressure situations [108].”

    From The Effect of Different Psychological Interventions on Athletes' Competitive Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. (2026) · cites this paper as [108]

    The Introduction describes neurofeedback as learning from one’s own brain signals and regulating brain function. The Discussion (Other Moderator Variables) reports increased relaxation during putting tasks, but says psychological states after training have been infrequently reported. Neither passage establishes enhanced emotional control in high-pressure situations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yu et al. noted that junior athletes benefited more from biofeedback than elite athletes.

    “Yu et al. [108] also noted that junior athletes benefited more from biofeedback than elite athletes.”

    From The Effect of Different Psychological Interventions on Athletes' Competitive Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. (2026) · cites this paper as [108]

    In Results > Results of Syntheses (page not specified), novices had a larger effect from EEG neurofeedback than experts (g = 1.23 versus 0.60). The paper cautions that the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.06). It compares skill levels, not junior and elite age or competition categories, and does not establish the claim for biofeedback generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [3]H. Watanabe, T. Hirayama, T. Kobayashi, and Y. Kurita, “ Relationship Between the Neurofeedback Training Effects Measured by the Maximum Frequency Deviation and the Patients' Physical and Mental Fatigue,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 32 (2017): 11– 16.
  2. [16]A. Mirifar, E. Kostrzewa, V. Mijajlovic, et al., “ Neurofeedback‐Induced Changes in Motor Network Connectivity in Parkinson's Disease,” Journal of Neurology 264, no. 3 (2017a): 630– 640.
  3. [33]J. P. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, et al., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).
  4. [34]J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed.(Routledge, 1988).
  5. [66]S. Muñoz‐Moldes and A. Cleeremans, “ Delineating Implicit and Explicit Processes in Neurofeedback Learning,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 118 (2020): 681– 688. 32918947 PMC7758707

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, C., Cheng, M., An, X., Chueh, T., Wu, J., Wang, K., & Hung, T.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan Normal University (TW)
  • Taiwan Institute of Sports Science (TW)
  • Beijing Sport University (CN)
  • University of Taipei (TW)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
Corresponding author
  • Wang, Kuo‐Pin
  • Hung, Tsung‐Min
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-04-24
Volume
35
Issue
5
Pages
e70055-e70055
ISSN
  • 0905-7188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0838
OpenAlex
W4409772612
Cited by
26
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 10
FWCI
6.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universität Bielefeld
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
neurofeedback, athletic performance, motor performance, methodological quality, randomized controlled trials, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Electroencephalography, Humans, Motor Skills, Athletic Performance, 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