ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
What can neurofeedback and transcranial alternating current stimulation reveal about cross-frequency coupling?
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. 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.
- Design and Experimental Investigation of a Multi-Level Heartbeat Sound Feedback-Based Neurofeedback System: Neural Mechanisms.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) above individual peak alpha frequency (PAF) does not shift PAF or experimental pain sensitivity: an exploratory study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the dynamics and function of cross-frequency coupling (CFC) in electroencephalography (EEG) have emerged as a prevalent area of investigation within the research community. One possible approach in studying CFC is to utilize non-invasive neuromodulation methods such as transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and neurofeedback (NFB). In this study, we address (1) the potential applicability of single and multifrequency tACS and NFB protocols in CFC research; (2) the prevalence of CFC types, such as phase-amplitude or amplitude-amplitude CFC, in tACS and NFB studies; and (3) factors that contribute to inter- and intraindividual variability in CFC and ways to address them potentially. Here we analyzed research studies on CFC, tACS, and neurofeedback. Based on current knowledge, CFC types have been reported in tACS and NFB studies. We hypothesize that direct and indirect effects of tACS and neurofeedback can induce CFC. Several variability factors such as health status, age, fatigue, personality traits, and eyes-closed (EC) vs. eyes-open (EO)condition may influence the CFC types. Modifying the duration of the tACS and neurofeedback intervention and selecting a specific demographic experimental group could reduce these sources of CFC variability. Neurofeedback and tACS appear to be promising tools for studying CFC.
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.