ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
Neurofeedback: potential for abuse and regulatory frameworks in the United States.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental privacy: navigating risks, rights and regulation : Advances in neuroscience challenge contemporary legal frameworks to protect mental privacy.EMBO reports · 2025Article
- Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Neurofeedback is a brain-training technique that continues to develop via ongoing innovations, and that has broadening potential impact. Once confined primarily to clinical and research settings, it is increasingly being used in the general population. Such development raises concerns about the current regulatory mechanisms and their adequacy in protecting patterns of economic and political decision-making from the novel technology. As studies have found neurofeedback to change subjects' preferences and mental associations covertly, there is a possibility it will be abused for political and commercial gains. Current regulatory practices (including disclaimer requirements, unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes and undue influence law) may be avenues from which to regulate neurofeedback influence. They are, however, limited. Regulating neurofeedback will face the line-drawing problem of determining when it induces an unacceptable level of influence. We suggest experiments that will clarify how the parameters of neurofeedback training affect its level of influence. In addition, we assert that the reactive nature of the traditional models of regulation will be inadequate against this and other rapidly transforming technologies. An integrated and proactive regulatory system designed for flexibility must be adopted to protect society in this era of modern technological advancement. This article is part of the theme issue 'Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation'.
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.