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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00301PMC PMC4911408
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00301

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Schematic representation for article selection. (B) Schematic representation of the experiments used in the review. Dark gray boxes specify the experimental paradigms grouped for analytical studies according to EEG (left branch) or behavioral protocol (right), light gray boxes specify groups not included in the analyses. In the EEG protocols branch, N denotes the number of experiments included in each EEG and behavioral group (EEG/behavioral) where EEG effects (changes of the EEG spectrum) were analyzed. In the Behavioral goals branch N denotes the number of experiments in each behavioral or cognitive group. The 28 EEG-NFB experiments were used for analyses. Of these studies, smaller groups were defined according to their specific EEG training protocols or the expected behavioral/cognitive effects. The groups are not mutually exclusive; both types of data were often analyzed in the same study, which resulted in multiple classifications. Some experiments also investigated more than one behavioral goal (Table 4). Protocols that could not be attributed to any of the specific subgroups (lowermost boxes “Other”) contributed only to the general analysis.
Figure 1 (A) Schematic representation for article selection. (B) Schematic representation of the experiments used in the review. Dark gray boxes specify the experimental paradigms grouped for analytical studies according to EEG (left branch) or behavioral protocol (right), light gray boxes specify groups not included in the analyses. In the EEG protocols branch, N denotes the number of experiments included in each EEG and behavioral group (EEG/behavioral) where EEG effects (changes of the EEG spectrum) were analyzed. In the Behavioral goals branch N denotes the number of experiments in each behavioral or cognitive group. The 28 EEG-NFB experiments were used for analyses. Of these studies, smaller groups were defined according to their specific EEG training protocols or the expected behavioral/cognitive effects. The groups are not mutually exclusive; both types of data were often analyzed in the same study, which resulted in multiple classifications. Some experiments also investigated more than one behavioral goal (Table 4). Protocols that could not be attributed to any of the specific subgroups (lowermost boxes “Other”) contributed only to the general analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Success ratio of the spectral EEG changes (dark gray bars) and behavioral improvement (light gray bars) calculated for: (A) experiments grouped according to training with particular frequency band protocols and (B) training aimed at different behavioral effects (i.e., improvement in attention and memory). Only protocols used in five or more experiments are included in the graphs with exception to four behavioral experiments in the Beta Group designated by *.
Figure 2 Success ratio of the spectral EEG changes (dark gray bars) and behavioral improvement (light gray bars) calculated for: (A) experiments grouped according to training with particular frequency band protocols and (B) training aimed at different behavioral effects (i.e., improvement in attention and memory). Only protocols used in five or more experiments are included in the graphs with exception to four behavioral experiments in the Beta Group designated by *.CC BY · 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fender, 1987, Source localization of brain electrical activity, 355

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 115

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2016-06-17
Volume
10
Pages
301-301
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnhum.2016.00301
PMC
PMC4911408
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