Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28753639›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Self-regulation strategy, feedback timing and hemodynamic properties modulate learning in a simulated fMRI neurofeedback environment.

Ethan F Oblak, Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock, James S Sulzer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mechanisms of brain self-regulation: psychological factors, mechanistic models and neural substrates.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Conducting decoded neurofeedback studies.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ethan F OblakDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9487-9850
Jarrod A Lewis-PeacockDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9918-465X
James S SulzerDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

Techniques DevelopmentP2CHD086844 · NICHD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BOGER, HEATHER A · 2015 to 2024
$12.7M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD086844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct manipulation of brain activity can be used to investigate causal brain-behavior relationships. Current noninvasive neural stimulation techniques are too coarse to manipulate behaviors that correlate with fine-grained spatial patterns recorded by fMRI. However, these activity patterns can be manipulated by having people learn to self-regulate their own recorded neural activity. This technique, known as fMRI neurofeedback, faces challenges as many participants are unable to self-regulate. The causes of this non-responder effect are not well understood due to the cost and complexity of such investigation in the MRI scanner. Here, we investigated the temporal dynamics of the hemodynamic response measured by fMRI as a potential cause of the non-responder effect. Learning to self-regulate the hemodynamic response involves a difficult temporal credit-assignment problem because this signal is both delayed and blurred over time. Two factors critical to this problem are the prescribed self-regulation strategy (cognitive or automatic) and feedback timing (continuous or intermittent). Here, we sought to evaluate how these factors interact with the temporal dynamics of fMRI without using the MRI scanner. We first examined the role of cognitive strategies by having participants learn to regulate a simulated neurofeedback signal using a unidimensional strategy: pressing one of two buttons to rotate a visual grating that stimulates a model of visual cortex. Under these conditions, continuous feedback led to faster regulation compared to intermittent feedback. Yet, since many neurofeedback studies prescribe implicit self-regulation strategies, we created a computational model of automatic reward-based learning to examine whether this result held true for automatic processing. When feedback was delayed and blurred based on the hemodynamics of fMRI, this model learned more reliably from intermittent feedback compared to continuous feedback. These results suggest that different self-regulation mechanisms prefer different feedback timings, and that these factors can be effectively explored and optimized via simulation prior to deployment in the MRI scanner.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAdolescentAdultBrainFemaleHemodynamicsHumansLearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeurofeedbackNeuroimagingVisual CortexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28753639
PMCPMC5550007
OpenAlexW2740175957

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.