Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40568446›Full record

ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2021

Event-related desynchronization in motor imagery with EEG neurofeedback in the context of declarative interference and sleep.

Mareike Daeglau, Catharina Zich, Julius Welzel, Samira Kristina Saak, Jannik Florian Scheffels, Cornelia Kranczioch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Mareike DaeglauNeurocognition and Functional Neurorehabilitation Group, Neuropsychology Lab, Depart-ment of Psychology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany.
Catharina ZichDepartment of Clinical and Movement Neuroscience, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, WC1N 3BG, London, UK.
Julius WelzelDepartment of Neurology, Kiel University, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Samira Kristina SaakDepartment of Biometry and Data Management, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Jannik Florian ScheffelsNeurocognition and Functional Neurorehabilitation Group, Neuropsychology Lab, Depart-ment of Psychology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany.
Cornelia KrancziochNeurocognition and Functional Neurorehabilitation Group, Neuropsychology Lab, Depart-ment of Psychology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) in combination with neurofeedback (NF) is a promising supplement to facilitate the acquisition of motor abilities and the recovery of impaired motor abilities following brain injuries. However, the ability to control MI NF is subject to a wide range of inter-individual variability. A substantial number of users experience difficulties in achieving good results, which compromises their chances to benefit from MI NF in a learning or rehabilitation context. It has been suggested that context factors, that is, factors outside the actual motor task, can explain individual differences in motor skill acquisition. Retrospective declarative interference and sleep have already been identified as critical factors for motor execution (ME) and MI based practice. Here, we investigate whether these findings generalize to practicing MI NF. Three groups underwent three blocks of practicing MI with NF, each on two subsequent days. In two of the groups, MI NF blocks were followed by either immediate or delayed declarative memory tasks. The control group performed only MI NF and no specific interference tasks. Two of the MI NF blocks were run on the first day of the experiment, the third in the morning of the second day. Significant within-block NF gains in mu and beta frequency event-related desynchronization (ERD) where evident for all groups. However, data did not provide evidence for an impact of immediate or delayed declarative interference on MI NF ERD. Also, MI NF ERD remained unchanged after a night of sleep. We did not observe the expected pattern of results for MI NF ERD with regard to declarative interference and a night of sleep. This is discussed in the context of variable experimental task designs, inter-individual differences, and performance measures.

Indexed as

Declarative interferenceEEGERD/SMotor imageryNeurofeedbackSleep

Identifiers

PMID40568446
PMCPMC12172706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.