ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Physiological artefact control in real-time fMRI neurofeedback - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Physiological artefacts are a general challenge in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and are of particular relevance in real-time fMRI neurofeedback (rt-fMRI NF), where they can contaminate the training procedure and lead to undesired effects. However, physiological noise correction has not received corresponding attention in rt-fMRI NF and most attempts have mainly focused on offline data correction. Given the relatively rare use of physiological denoising methods in rt-fMRI NF and little knowledge about how these methods relate to reported outcomes, in this paper we review recent practices in physiology correction, and conduct a meta-analysis to summarize how reported outcomes vary across different correction approaches. A total of 227 studies were included. We found that physiology correction methods are still not very common offline (29.1%) and online (31.3%) and that even basic physiology recordings are still quite rarely reported in rt-fMRI studies (18.1%). This suggests that the implementation of physiological noise correction and use of concurrently recorded physiological signals is still in early stages. When summarizing reported outcomes of real-time target signal regulation, we found that studies employing online physiological correction did not systematically report smaller meta-analytic effect sizes than studies without such correction. Among correction methods,
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.