ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2023
Neurofeedback training and motor learning: the enhanced sensorimotor rhythm protocol is better or the suppressed alpha or the suppressed mu?
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of EEG neurofeedback and training interventions on golf putting performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- The Effect of EEG Neurofeedback Training on Sport Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025Pooled it
- Oscillatory dynamics of motor learning across adulthood life span: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping the Digital Mind: A Meta-Analysis of EEG Biomarkers in Cognition, Emotion, and Mental Health.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Individual SMR neurofeedback responsiveness during a single session and its associations with autonomic regulation and shooting performance in elite rifle athletes.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Exploratory Investigation of Motor and Psychophysiological Outcomes Following VR-Based Motor Training with Augmented Sensory Feedback for a Pilot Cohort with Spinal Cord Injury.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- EEG-Based Neurofeedback in Athletes and Non-Athletes: A Scoping Review of Outcomes and Methodologies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Improving Mental Skills in Precision Sports by Using Neurofeedback Training: A Narrative Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluating EEG neurofeedback in sport psychology: a systematic review of RCT studies for insights into mechanisms and performance improvement.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- A new EEG neurofeedback training approach in sports: the effects function-specific instruction of Mu rhythm and visuomotor skill performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A large number of previous studies have examined how different neurofeedback-based techniques may influence motor learning. However, only a few studies attempted to compare the effects of these different techniques on motor learning. Therefore, the present study attempts to examine the effects of neurofeedback training on motor learning in novice golfers, using three protocols, namely enhanced sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) at Cz, suppressed alpha waves at Fz, and suppressed mu waves at Cz. The participants were 64 adults (32 females; mean age = 22.31 ± 2.25 years). The study consisted of a pretest stage (day 1), intervention (6 sessions, over two weeks, 3 sessions per week), short-term retention (one day after intervention), and long-term retention (two weeks after intervention); in the pretest and short-term and long-term retention, motor performance for golf putting (12 trials) as well as amplitudes of SMR wave at Cz, alpha at Fz, and Mu at Cz were recorded. During each intervention session, the participants in three neurofeedback groups and a sham group first performed neurofeedback training (enhanced SMR at Cz, suppressed alpha at Fz, and suppressed Mu at Cz) for 20 min. Then, the participants in all groups performed three blocks of 12 trials consisting of golf putting training. The results indicated no difference between the sham and the experimental groups in the acquisition stage, as individuals in all groups experienced similar improvement in putting accuracy. However, in the short-term retention, all the three neurofeedback groups outperformed the sham group, although in the long-term retention, only the SMR group and the Alpha group showed a better performance than the sham group while the Mu group did not exhibit a notably better performance than the sham group. Our results also showed significant variations in the amplitudes of the SMR, alpha, and mu waves depending on the neurofeedback intervention provided, while no significant variation was observed in the sham group. Based on these results, it is recommended that coaches should make further use of enhanced SMR at Cz or suppressed alpha at Fz as their neurofeedback interventions to facilitate longer-term motor learning in golfers.
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.