Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28154796›Full record

Trial reportNeuroImage. Clinical2017

Continuous vs. intermittent neurofeedback to regulate auditory cortex activity of tinnitus patients using real-time fMRI - A pilot study.

Kirsten Emmert, Rotem Kopel, Yury Koush, Raphael Maire, Pascal Senn, Dimitri Van De Ville, Sven Haller

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. [Research on auditory neurofeedback technology and its multi-disciplinary applications].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Closed-loop fMRI at the mesoscopic scale of columns and layers: Can we do it and why would we want to?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Migrainous Vertigo, Tinnitus, and Ear Symptoms and Alternatives.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Kirsten EmmertDepartment of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland; Medical Image Processing Laboratory, Institute of Bioengineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Campus Biotech, Chemin des Mines 9, Case postale 60, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
Rotem KopelDepartment of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland; Medical Image Processing Laboratory, Institute of Bioengineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Campus Biotech, Chemin des Mines 9, Case postale 60, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
Yury KoushDepartment of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland; Medical Image Processing Laboratory, Institute of Bioengineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Campus Biotech, Chemin des Mines 9, Case postale 60, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, 300 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06519, USA.
Raphael MaireDepartment of ENT, Head & Neck Surgery, Neurotology and Audiology Unit, University Hospital of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 21, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pascal SennDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Service of ORL and HNS, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Dimitri Van De VilleDepartment of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland; Medical Image Processing Laboratory, Institute of Bioengineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Campus Biotech, Chemin des Mines 9, Case postale 60, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
Sven HallerAffidea CDRC - Centre Diagnostique Radiologique de Carouge, Clos de la Fonderie 1, 1227 Carouge, Switzerland; Department of Surgical Sciences, Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity Hospital of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Geneva · CHYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emerging technique of real-time fMRI neurofeedback trains individuals to regulate their own brain activity via feedback from an fMRI measure of neural activity. Optimum feedback presentation has yet to be determined, particularly when working with clinical populations. To this end, we compared continuous against intermittent feedback in subjects with tinnitus. Fourteen participants with tinnitus completed the whole experiment consisting of nine runs (3 runs × 3 days). Prior to the neurofeedback, the target region was localized within the auditory cortex using auditory stimulation (1 kHz tone pulsating at 6 Hz) in an ON-OFF block design. During neurofeedback runs, participants received either continuous (n = 7, age 46.84 ± 12.01, Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) 49.43 ± 15.70) or intermittent feedback (only after the regulation block) (n = 7, age 47.42 ± 12.39, TFI 49.82 ± 20.28). Participants were asked to decrease auditory cortex activity that was presented to them by a moving bar. In the first and the last session, participants also underwent arterial spin labeling (ASL) and resting-state fMRI imaging. We assessed tinnitus severity using the TFI questionnaire before all sessions, directly after all sessions and six weeks after all sessions. We then compared neuroimaging results from neurofeedback using a general linear model (GLM) and region-of-interest analysis as well as behavior measures employing a repeated-measures ANOVA. In addition, we looked at the seed-based connectivity of the auditory cortex using resting-state data and the cerebral blood flow using ASL data. GLM group analysis revealed that a considerable part of the target region within the auditory cortex was significantly deactivated during neurofeedback. When comparing continuous and intermittent feedback groups, the continuous group showed a stronger deactivation of parts of the target region, specifically the secondary auditory cortex. This result was confirmed in the region-of-interest analysis that showed a significant down-regulation effect for the continuous but not the intermittent group. Additionally, continuous feedback led to a slightly stronger effect over time while intermittent feedback showed best results in the first session. Behaviorally, there was no significant effect on the total TFI score, though on a descriptive level TFI scores tended to decrease after all sessions and in the six weeks follow up in the continuous group. Seed-based connectivity with a fixed-effects analysis revealed that functional connectivity increased over sessions in the posterior cingulate cortex, premotor area and part of the insula when looking at all patients while cerebral blood flow did not change significantly over time. Overall, these results show that continuous feedback is suitable for long-term neurofeedback experiments while intermittent feedback presentation promises good results for single session experiments when using the auditory cortex as a target region. In particular, the down-regulation effect is more pronounced in the secondary auditory cortex, which might be more susceptible to voluntary modulation in comparison to a primary sensory region.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingRestAdultAnalysis of VarianceAuditory CortexFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeurofeedbackOxygenPilot ProjectsSpin LabelsOxygenSpin LabelsAuditory cortexNeurofeedbackReal-time fMRISelf-regulationTinnitus

Identifiers

PMID28154796
PMCPMC5278116
OpenAlexW2568639776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.