ArticleClinical EEG and neuroscience2020
Serious Games as Potential Therapies: A Validation Study of a Neurofeedback Game.
Article in Clinical EEG and neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaming disorder in the ICD-11: the state of the game.BMC psychiatry · 2025Review
- Electroencephalography Neurofeedback Training with Focus on the State of Attention: An Investigation Using Source Localization and Effective Connectivity.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Revolutionizing Neurological Disorder Treatment: Integrating Innovations in Pharmaceutical Interventions and Advanced Therapeutic Technologies.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
- Attention Detection in Virtual Environments Using EEG Signals: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serious (biofeedback) games offer promising ways to supplement or replace more expensive face-to-face interventions in health care. However, studies on the validity and effectiveness of EEG-based serious games remain scarce. In the current study, we investigated whether the conditions of the neurofeedback game "Daydream" indeed trained the brain activity as mentioned in the game manual. EEG activity was assessed in 14 healthy male volunteers while playing the 2 conditions of the game. The participants completed a training of 5 sessions. EEG frequency analyses were performed to verify the claims of the manual. We found significant differences in α- to β-ratio between the 2 conditions although only in the amplitude data, not in the power data. Within the conditions, mean α-amplitude only differed significantly from the β-amplitude in the concentration condition. Our analyses showed that neither α nor β brain activity differed significantly between game levels (higher level requiring increased brain activity) in either of the two conditions. In conclusion, we found only marginal evidence for the proposed claims stated in the manual of the game. Our research emphasizes that it is crucial to validate the claims that serious games make, especially before implementing them in the clinic or as therapeutic devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.