Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28119594›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2016

Combined Action Observation and Motor Imagery Neurofeedback for Modulation of Brain Activity.

Christopher L Friesen, Timothy Bardouille, Heather F Neyedli, Shaun G Boe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Functional Localizers for Motor Areas of the Brain Using fMRI.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher L FriesenLaboratory for Brain Recovery and Function, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada.
Timothy BardouilleDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; Biomedical Translational Imaging Centre, IWK Health CentreHalifax, NS, Canada; School of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada.
Heather F NeyedliDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada.
Shaun G BoeLaboratory for Brain Recovery and Function, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; School of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada; School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) and action observation have proven to be efficacious adjuncts to traditional physiotherapy for enhancing motor recovery following stroke. Recently, researchers have used a combined approach called imagined imitation (II), where an individual watches a motor task being performed, while simultaneously imagining they are performing the movement. While neurofeedback (NFB) has been used extensively with MI to improve patients' ability to modulate sensorimotor activity and enhance motor recovery, the effectiveness of using NFB with II to modulate brain activity is unknown. This project tested the ability of participants to modulate sensorimotor activity during electroencephalography-based II-NFB of a complex, multi-part unilateral handshake, and whether this ability transferred to a subsequent bout of MI. Moreover, given the goal of translating findings from NFB research into practical applications, such as rehabilitation, the II-NFB system was designed with several user interface and user experience features, in an attempt to both drive user engagement and match the level of challenge to the abilities of the subjects. In particular, at easy difficulty levels the II-NFB system incentivized contralateral sensorimotor up-regulation (via event related desynchronization of the mu rhythm), while at higher difficulty levels the II-NFB system incentivized sensorimotor lateralization (i.e., both contralateral up-regulation and ipsilateral down-regulation). Thirty-two subjects, receiving real or sham NFB attended four sessions where they engaged in II-NFB training and subsequent MI. Results showed the NFB group demonstrated more bilateral sensorimotor activity during sessions 2-4 during II-NFB and subsequent MI, indicating mixed success for the implementation of this particular II-NFB system. Here we discuss our findings in the context of the design features included in the II-NFB system, highlighting limitations that should be considered in future designs.

Indexed as

action observationbrain computer interfaceelectroencephalographymotor imageryneurofeedback

Identifiers

PMID28119594
PMCPMC5223402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.