ArticleNeural plasticity2021
An Exploratory Study of Training Intensity in EEG Neurofeedback.
Article in Neural plasticity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- EEG-Based Multifocal Tomographic Neurofeedback in Older Individuals With Chronic Tinnitus Does Not Lead to Persistent Electrophysiological Changes.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Comparative Effects of BCI-Based Attention Training, Methylphenidate, and Citicoline on Attention and Executive Function in School-Age Children: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Effects of one session of theta or high alpha neurofeedback on EEG activity and working memory.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Interest of neurofeedback training for cognitive performance and risk of brain disorders in the military context.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- A pediatric near-infrared spectroscopy brain-computer interface based on the detection of emotional valence.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- An Exploratory Study of Training Intensity in EEG Neurofeedback.Neural plasticity · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurofeedback training has shown benefits in clinical treatment and behavioral performance enhancement. Despite the wide range of applications, no consensus has been reached about the optimal training schedule. In this work, an EEG neurofeedback practical experiment was conducted aimed at investigating the effects of training intensity on the enhancement of the amplitude in the individual upper alpha band. We designed INTENSIVE and SPARSE training modalities, which differed regarding three essential aspects of training intensity: the number of sessions, the duration of a session, and the interval between sessions. Nine participants in the INTENSIVE group completed 4 sessions with 37.5 minutes each during consecutive days, while nine participants in the SPARSE group performed 6 sessions of 25 minutes spread over approximately 3 weeks. As a result, regarding the short-term effects, the upper alpha band amplitude change within sessions did not significantly differ between the two groups. Nonetheless, only the INTENSIVE group showed a significant increase in the upper alpha band amplitude. However, for the sustained effects across sessions, none of the groups showed significant changes in the upper alpha band amplitude across the whole course of training. The findings suggest that the progression within session is favored by the intensive design. Therefore, based on these findings, it is proposed that training intensity influences EEG self-regulation within sessions. Further investigations are needed to isolate different aspects of training intensity and effectively confirm if one modality globally outperforms the other.
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.