Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32333624›Full record

ReviewHuman brain mapping2020

Quality and denoising in real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback: A methods review.

Stephan Heunis, Rolf Lamerichs, Svitlana Zinger, Cesar Caballero-Gaudes, Jacobus F A Jansen, Bert Aldenkamp, Marcel Breeuwer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human brain mapping, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Closed-loop fMRI at the mesoscopic scale of columns and layers: Can we do it and why would we want to?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Stephan HeunisDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3503-9872
Rolf LamerichsDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Svitlana ZingerDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Cesar Caballero-GaudesBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, San Sebastian, Spain.
Jacobus F A JansenDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5271-8060
Bert AldenkampDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Marcel BreeuwerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

LSH-TKI LSHM16053-SGFPhilips Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurofeedback training using real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rtfMRI-NF) allows subjects voluntary control of localised and distributed brain activity. It has sparked increased interest as a promising non-invasive treatment option in neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive disorders, although its efficacy and clinical significance are yet to be determined. In this work, we present the first extensive review of acquisition, processing and quality control methods available to improve the quality of the neurofeedback signal. Furthermore, we investigate the state of denoising and quality control practices in 128 recently published rtfMRI-NF studies. We found: (a) that less than a third of the studies reported implementing standard real-time fMRI denoising steps, (b) significant room for improvement with regards to methods reporting and (c) the need for methodological studies quantifying and comparing the contribution of denoising steps to the neurofeedback signal quality. Advances in rtfMRI-NF research depend on reproducibility of methods and results. Notably, a systematic effort is needed to build up evidence that disentangles the various mechanisms influencing neurofeedback effects. To this end, we recommend that future rtfMRI-NF studies: (a) report implementation of a set of standard real-time fMRI denoising steps according to a proposed COBIDAS-style checklist (https://osf.io/kjwhf/), (b) ensure the quality of the neurofeedback signal by calculating and reporting community-informed quality metrics and applying offline control checks and (c) strive to adopt transparent principles in the form of methods and data sharing and support of open-source rtfMRI-NF software. Code and data for reproducibility, as well as an interactive environment to explore the study data, can be accessed at https://github.com/jsheunis/quality-and-denoising-in-rtfmri-nf.

Indexed as

Functional NeuroimagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeurofeedbackQuality ControlHumansdenoisingfMRIneurofeedbackqualityreal-timereproducibility

Identifiers

PMID32333624
PMCPMC7375116

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.