Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37038500›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2023

Cognitive training, but not EEG-neurofeedback, improves working memory in healthy volunteers.

Beatrice Barbazzeni, Oliver Speck, Emrah Düzel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Beatrice BarbazzeniFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Cognitive Neurology and Dementia Research, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany.
Oliver SpeckFaculty of Natural Science, Department of Biomedical Magnetic Resonance, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany.
Emrah DüzelFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Cognitive Neurology and Dementia Research, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0139-5388
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEOtto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory performance can be influenced by motivational factors, which may be associated with specific brain activities, including suppression of alpha oscillations. We investigated whether providing individuals online feedback about their ongoing oscillations (EEG-neurofeedback) can improve working memory under high and low reward expectancies. We combined working memory training with neurofeedback to enhance alpha suppression in a monetary-rewarded delayed match-to-sample task for visual objects. Along with alpha, we considered the neighbouring theta and beta bands. In a double-blind experiment, individuals were trained over 5 days to suppress alpha power by receiving real-time neurofeedback or control neurofeedback (placebo) in reward and no-reward trials. We investigated (i) whether neurofeedback enhances alpha suppression, (ii) whether monetary reward enhances alpha suppression and working memory, and (iii) whether any performance benefits of neurofeedback-training would transfer to unrelated cognitive tasks. With the same experimental design, we conducted two studies with differing instructions given at the maintenance, yielding together 300 EEG recording sessions. In Study I, participants were engaged in a mental calculation task during maintenance. In Study II, they were instructed to visually rehearse the sample image. Results from Study I demonstrated a significant training and reward-anticipation effect on working memory accuracy and reaction times over 5 days. Neurofeedback and reward anticipation showed effects on theta suppression but not on alpha suppression. Moreover, a cognitive training effect was observed on beta suppression. Thus, neurofeedback-training of alpha was unrelated to working memory performance. Study II replicated the training and reward-anticipation effect on working memory but without any effects of neurofeedback-training on oscillations or working memory. Neither study showed transfer effects of either working memory or neurofeedback-training. A linear mixed-effect model analysis of neurofeedback-independent training-related improvement of working memory combining both studies showed that improved working memory performance was related to oscillatory changes over training days in the encoding and maintenance phases. Improvements in accuracy were related to increasing beta amplitude in reward trials over right parietal electrodes. Improvements in reaction times were related to increases in right parietal theta amplitude during encoding and increased right parietal and decreased left parietal beta amplitudes during maintenance. Thus, while our study provided no evidence that neurofeedback targeting alpha improved the efficacy of working memory training or evidence for transfer, it showed a relationship between training-related changes in parietal beta oscillations during encoding and improvements in accuracy. Right parietal beta oscillations could be an intervention target for improving working memory accuracy.

Indexed as

alpha suppressioncognitive trainingmonetary rewardneurofeedback trainingworking memory

Identifiers

PMID37038500
PMCPMC10082554
OpenAlexW4361262345

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.