Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30423429›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Control freaks: Towards optimal selection of control conditions for fMRI neurofeedback studies.

Bettina Sorger, Frank Scharnowski, David E J Linden, Michelle Hampson, Kymberly D Young

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05570695 (How do Alpha Oscillations Shape the Perception of Pain? - An EEG-based Neurofeedback Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 111 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

NCT05570695 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

How do Alpha Oscillations Shape the Perception of Pain? - An EEG-based Neurofeedback Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorTechnical University of MunichRan2022 to 2023Enrolled75ConditionsExperimental Pain in Healthy Human SubjectsArmsattention right training, ARTNF, attention left training, ALTNF, sham attention right training, ARTsham, sham attention left training, ALTsham
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Effects of fMRI neurofeedback of right inferior frontal cortex on inhibitory brain activation in children with ADHD.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Trial
  20. Trial

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Bettina SorgerDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Frank ScharnowskiDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; Neuroscience Center Zürich, University of Zürich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland; Zürich Center for Integrative Human Physiology (ZIHP), University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
David E J LindenCardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Michelle HampsonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Psychiatry and the Child Study Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kymberly D YoungDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: youngk@pitt.edu.

Funding

Biofeedback of activity in the orbitofrontal cortex for OCDR01MH100068 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HAMPSON, MICHELLE · 2014 to 2018
$2.5M
Biofeedback of activity in the supplementary motor area for Tourette SyndromeR01MH095789 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HAMPSON, MICHELLE · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Effects of Amygdala Neurofeedback on Depressive Symptoms and Processing BiasesR00MH101235 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI YOUNG, KYM · 2016 to 2018
$727k
Medical Research Council MR/L010305/1NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH101235NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH095789NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

fMRI Neurofeedback research employs many different control conditions. Currently, there is no consensus as to which control condition is best, and the answer depends on what aspects of the neurofeedback-training design one is trying to control for. These aspects can range from determining whether participants can learn to control brain activity via neurofeedback to determining whether there are clinically significant effects of the neurofeedback intervention. Lack of consensus over criteria for control conditions has hampered the design and interpretation of studies employing neurofeedback protocols. This paper presents an overview of the most commonly employed control conditions currently used in neurofeedback studies and discusses their advantages and disadvantages. Control conditions covered include no control, treatment-as-usual, bidirectional-regulation control, feedback of an alternative brain signal, sham feedback, and mental-rehearsal control. We conclude that the selection of the control condition(s) should be determined by the specific research goal of the study and best procedures that effectively control for relevant confounding factors.

Indexed as

Control GroupsMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainBrain MappingHumansImaginationNeurofeedbackPlacebo EffectControl conditionsMental-rehearsalNeurofeedbackPlaceboReal-time neuroimagingSham

Identifiers

PMID30423429
PMCPMC6338498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.