Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30954707›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

A simulation-based approach to improve decoded neurofeedback performance.

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

Abstract read
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. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sculpting new visual categories into the human brain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. 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
  4. Unconscious Manipulation of Conceptual Representations with Decoded Neurofeedback Impacts Search Behavior.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Conducting decoded neurofeedback studies.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Ethan F OblakDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. Electronic address: eoblak@utexas.edu.
James S SulzerDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Jarrod A Lewis-PeacockDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.

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

The neural correlates of specific brain functions such as visual orientation tuning and individual finger movements can be revealed using multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA) of fMRI data. Neurofeedback based on these distributed patterns of brain activity presents a unique ability for precise neuromodulation. Recent applications of this technique, known as decoded neurofeedback, have manipulated fear conditioning, visual perception, confidence judgements and facial preference. However, there has yet to be an empirical justification of the timing and data processing parameters of these experiments. Suboptimal parameter settings could impact the efficacy of neurofeedback learning and contribute to the 'non-responder' effect. The goal of this study was to investigate how design parameters of decoded neurofeedback experiments affect decoding accuracy and neurofeedback performance. Subjects participated in three fMRI sessions: two 'finger localizer' sessions to identify the fMRI patterns associated with each of the four fingers of the right hand, and one 'finger finding' neurofeedback session to assess neurofeedback performance. Using only the localizer data, we show that real-time decoding can be degraded by poor experiment timing or ROI selection. To set key parameters for the neurofeedback session, we used offline simulations of decoded neurofeedback using data from the localizer sessions to predict neurofeedback performance. We show that these predictions align with real neurofeedback performance at the group level and can also explain individual differences in neurofeedback success. Overall, this work demonstrates the usefulness of offline simulation to improve the success of real-time decoded neurofeedback experiments.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultBrain MappingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeurofeedbackResearch DesignSensorimotor CortexfMRIMulti-voxel pattern analysisNeurofeedbackSensorimotor cortexSimulation

Identifiers

PMID30954707
PMCPMC12094265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.