ArticleBrain communications2020
Activity or connectivity? A randomized controlled feasibility study evaluating neurofeedback training in Huntington's disease.
Article in Brain communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frontostriatal circuitry as a target for fMRI-based neurofeedback interventions: A systematic review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Can we predict real-time fMRI neurofeedback learning success from pretraining brain activity?Human brain mapping · 2020Pooled it
- Feasibility of training the dorsolateral prefrontal-striatal network by real-time fMRI neurofeedback.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- A Novel PNDA-MMNet Model for Evaluating Dynamic Changes in the Brain State of Patients with PTSD During Neurofeedback Training.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Theta EEG Neurofeedback Procedure for Cognitive Training Using Simultaneous fMRI in Counterbalanced Active-Sham Study Design.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- From lab to life: challenges and perspectives of fNIRS for haemodynamic-based neurofeedback in real-world environments.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Neuroimaging to Facilitate Clinical Trials in Huntington's Disease: Current Opinion from the EHDN Imaging Working Group.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2024Review
- Self-regulation of visual word form area activation with real-time fMRI neurofeedback.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Relating quantitative 7T MRI across cortical depths to cytoarchitectonics, gene expression and connectomics.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Comparison of neural signal sources for discriminating "crave" and "don't crave" task conditions: Implications for fMRI neurofeedback.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Non-invasive methods, such as neurofeedback training, could support cognitive symptom management in Huntington's disease by targeting brain regions whose function is impaired. The aim of our single-blind, sham-controlled study was to collect rigorous evidence regarding the feasibility of neurofeedback training in Huntington's disease by examining two different methods, activity and connectivity real-time functional MRI neurofeedback training. Thirty-two Huntington's disease gene-carriers completed 16 runs of neurofeedback training, using an optimized real-time functional MRI protocol. Participants were randomized into four groups, two treatment groups, one receiving neurofeedback derived from the activity of the supplementary motor area, and another receiving neurofeedback based on the correlation of supplementary motor area and left striatum activity (connectivity neurofeedback training), and two sham control groups, matched to each of the treatment groups. We examined differences between the groups during neurofeedback training sessions and after training at follow-up sessions. Transfer of training was measured by measuring the participants' ability to upregulate neurofeedback training target levels without feedback (near transfer), as well as by examining change in objective, a priori defined, behavioural measures of cognitive and psychomotor function (far transfer) before and at 2 months after training. We found that the treatment group had significantly higher neurofeedback training target levels during the training sessions compared to the control group. However, we did not find robust evidence of better transfer in the treatment group compared to controls, or a difference between the two neurofeedback training methods. We also did not find evidence in support of a relationship between change in cognitive and psychomotor function and learning success. We conclude that although there is evidence that neurofeedback training can be used to guide participants to regulate the activity and connectivity of specific regions in the brain, evidence regarding transfer of learning and clinical benefit was not robust.
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.