Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31423818›Full record

ArticleClinical EEG and neuroscience2020

Serious Games as Potential Therapies: A Validation Study of a Neurofeedback Game.

Femke Coenen, Floortje E Scheepers, Saskia J M Palmen, Maretha V de Jonge, Bob Oranje

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Femke CoenenDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9302-376X
Floortje E ScheepersDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia J M PalmenDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maretha V de JongeDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bob OranjeDepartment of Psychiatry, University Medical Center Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAttentionBehaviorElectroencephalographyGames, ExperimentalHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleNeurofeedbackadultsEEGfrequency analysesneurofeedbackvalidation

Identifiers

PMID31423818
PMCPMC6963172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.