Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33916676›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2021

Enhancing the Effects of Neurofeedback Training: The Motivational Value of the Reinforcers.

Rubén Pérez-Elvira, Javier Oltra-Cucarella, José Antonio Carrobles, Jorge Moltó, Mercedes Flórez, Salvador Parra, María Agudo, Clara Saez, Sergio Guarino, Raluca Maria Costea and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rubén Pérez-ElviraNeuropsychophysiology Laboratory, NEPSA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 3003 Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9606-3791
Javier Oltra-CucarellaDepartment of Health Psychology, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, 03202 Elche, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5966-8556
José Antonio CarroblesBiological and Health Psychology Department, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain.
Jorge MoltóPSYD-Neurofeedback, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Mercedes FlórezPSYD-Neurofeedback, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Salvador ParraLURIA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 11407 Jerez, Spain.
María AgudoNeuropsychophysiology Laboratory, NEPSA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 3003 Salamanca, Spain.
Clara SaezNeuropsychophysiology Laboratory, NEPSA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 3003 Salamanca, Spain.
Sergio GuarinoNEPSA Rehabilitación Neurológica, 47001 Valladolid, Spain.
Raluca Maria CosteaResearch Department (Ceforaten), Sibiu Pediatric Hospital, 550178 Sibiu, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-2651-2007
Bogdan NeamtuResearch Department (Ceforaten), Sibiu Pediatric Hospital, 550178 Sibiu, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-2573-621X
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu · ROUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid · ESUniversitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain activity that is measured by electroencephalography (EEG) can be modified through operant conditioning, specifically using neurofeedback (NF). NF has been applied to several disorders claiming that a change in the erratic brain activity would be accompanied by a reduction of the symptoms. However, the expected results are not always achieved. Some authors have suggested that the lack of an adequate response may be due to an incorrect application of the operant conditioning principles. A key factor in operant conditioning is the use of reinforcers and their value in modifying behavior, something that is not always sufficiently taken into account. This work aims to clarify the relevance of the motivational value versus the purely informational value of the reinforcer. In this study, 113 subjects were randomly assigned two different reinforcer conditions: a selected reinforcer-the subjects subjectively selected the reinforcers-or an imposed reinforcer-the reinforcers were assigned by the experimenter-and both groups undertook NF sessions to enhance the sensorimotor rhythm (SMR). In addition, the selected reinforcer group was divided into two subgroups: one receiving real NF and the other one sham NF. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline in terms of SMR amplitude. After the intervention, only those subjects belonging to the selected reinforcer group and receiving real NF increased their SMR. Our results provide evidence for the importance of the motivational value of the reinforcer in Neurofeedback success.

Indexed as

neurofeedbackreinforcersensorimotor rhythm

Identifiers

PMID33916676
PMCPMC8067059
OpenAlexW3144987911

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.