Cited by 115EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural dynamics and brain functionTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

The Do's and Don'ts of Neurofeedback Training: A Review of the Controlled Studies Using Healthy Adults

Open access
Rogala, Jacek, Jurewicz, Katarzyna, Paluch, Katarzyna, Kublik, Ewa, Cetnarski, Ryszard, Wróbel, Andrzej·2016·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

The goal of EEG neurofeedback (EEG-NFB) training is to induce changes in the power of targeted EEG bands to produce beneficial changes in cognitive or motor function. The effectiveness of different EEG-NFB protocols can be measured using two dependent variables: (1) changes in EEG activity and (2) behavioral changes of a targeted function (for therapeutic applications the desired changes should be long-lasting). To firmly establish a causal link between these variables and the selected protocol, similar changes should not be observed when appropriate control paradigms are used. The main objective of this review is to evaluate the evidence, reported in the scientific literature, which supports the validity of various EEG-NFB protocols. Our primary concern is to highlight the role that uncontrolled nonspecific factors can play in the results generated from EEG-NFB studies. Nonspecific factors are often ignored in EEG-NFB designs or the data are not presented, which means conclusions should be interpreted cautiously. As an outcome of this review we present a do's and don'ts list, which can be used to develop future EEG-NFB methodologies, based on the small set of experiments in which the proper control groups have excluded non-EEG-NFB related effects. We found two features which positively correlated with the expected changes in power of the trained EEG band(s): (1) protocols which focused on training a smaller number of frequency bands and (2) a bigger number of electrodes used for neurofeedback training. However, we did not find evidence in support of the positive relationship between power changes of a trained frequency band(s) and specific behavioral effects.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00301

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • The extrapolation from neurofeedback to SMR BCI is not straightforward because neurofeedback typically exerts lesser demands, requiring control over predefined brain signals by direct observation, while SMR BCIs are complex pattern-recognition systems feeding back transformations of multivariate brain activity.

    “However, this extrapolation is by no means straightforward, as neurofeedback typically exerts lesser demands, requiring control over predefined brain signals by direct observation [56], while SMR BCIs are complex pattern-recognition systems feeding back transformations of multivariate brain activity [46].”

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

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogala, J., Jurewicz, K., Paluch, K., Kublik, E., Cetnarski, R., & Wróbel, A.
Affiliations
Instytut Biologii Doświadczalnej im. Marcelego Nenckiego (PL)
Corresponding author
Rogala, Jacek
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2016-06-17
Volume
10
Pages
301-301
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2426762202
Cited by
115
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2012/07/B/NZ7/04383)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
neurofeedback, EEG band power, non-specific effects, control groups, electrode number, behavioral effects, healthy adults, causal inference

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