Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36118975›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

How standardized are "standard protocols"? Variations in protocol and performance evaluation for slow cortical potential neurofeedback: A systematic review.

John Hasslinger, Micaela Meregalli, Sven Bölte

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Neurofeedback for functional neurological disorders: future directions for research and clinical practice.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Application and Research Progress of BCI in Post-Stroke Psychiatric Disorders: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

John HasslingerCenter of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (KIND), Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Micaela MeregalliChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, Stockholm Healthcare Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sven BölteCenter of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (KIND), Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Healthcare Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Curtin University · AUKarolinska Institutet · SEStockholm Health Care Services · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurofeedback (NF) aims to alter neural activity by enhancing self-regulation skills. Over the past decade NF has received considerable attention as a potential intervention option for many somatic and mental conditions and ADHD in particular. However, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated insufficient superiority of NF compared to treatment as usual and sham conditions. It has been argued that the reason for limited NF effects may be attributable to participants' challenges to self-regulate the targeted neural activity. Still, there is support of NF efficacy when only considering so-called "standard protocols," such as Slow Cortical Potential NF training (SCP-NF). This PROSPERO registered systematic review following PRISMA criteria searched literature databases for studies applying SCP-NF protocols. Our review focus concerned the operationalization of self-regulatory success, and protocol-details that could influence the evaluation of self-regulation. Such details included; electrode placement, number of trials, length per trial, proportions of training modalities, handling of artifacts and skill-transfer into daily-life. We identified a total of 63 eligible reports published in the year 2000 or later. SCP-NF protocol-details varied considerably on most variables, except for electrode placement. However, due to the increased availability of commercial systems, there was a trend to more uniform protocol-details. Although, token-systems are popular in SCP-NF for ADHD, only half reported a performance-based component. Also, transfer exercises have become a staple part of SCP-NF. Furthermore, multiple operationalizations of regulatory success were identified, limiting comparability between studies, and perhaps usefulness of so-called transfer-exercises, which purpose is to facilitate the transfer of the self-regulatory skills into every-day life. While studies utilizing SCP as Brain-Computer-Interface mainly focused on the acquisition of successful self-regulation, clinically oriented studies often neglected this. Congruently, rates of successful regulators in clinical studies were mostly low (<50%). The relation between SCP self-regulation and behavior, and how symptoms in different disorders are affected, is complex and not fully understood. Future studies need to report self-regulation based on standardized measures, in order to facilitate both comparability and understanding of the effects on symptoms. When applied as treatment, future SCP-NF studies also need to put greater emphasis on the acquisition of self-regulation (before evaluating symptom outcomes). Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260087, Identifier: CRD42021260087.

Indexed as

brain computer interface (BCI)neurofeedbackself-regulationslow cortical potentials (SCP)systematic review

Identifiers

PMID36118975
PMCPMC9478392
OpenAlexW4294168600

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.