Simon H Kohl1,2, David M A Mehler3, Michael Lührs4,5, Robert T Thibault6,7, Kerstin Konrad1,2, Bettina Sorger5. 1. JARA-Institute Molecular Neuroscience and Neuroimaging (INM-11), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany. 2. Child Neuropsychology Section, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. 4. Brain Innovation B.V., Research Department, Maastricht, Netherlands. 5. Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands. 6. School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 7. MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Background: The effects of electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-neurofeedback on brain activation and behaviors have been studied extensively in the past. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback (fNIRS-neurofeedback). FNIRS is a functional neuroimaging technique based on brain hemodynamics, which is easy to use, portable, inexpensive, and has reduced sensitivity to movement artifacts. Method: We provide the first systematic review and database of fNIRS-neurofeedback studies, synthesizing findings from 22 peer-reviewed studies (including a total of N = 441 participants; 337 healthy, 104 patients). We (1) give a comprehensive overview of how fNIRS-neurofeedback training protocols were implemented, (2) review the online signal-processing methods used, (3) evaluate the quality of studies using pre-set methodological and reporting quality criteria and also present statistical sensitivity/power analyses, (4) investigate the effectiveness of fNIRS-neurofeedback in modulating brain activation, and (5) review its effectiveness in changing behavior in healthy and pathological populations. Results and discussion: (1-2) Published studies are heterogeneous (e.g., neurofeedback targets, investigated populations, applied training protocols, and methods). (3) Large randomized controlled trials are still lacking. In view of the novelty of the field, the quality of the published studies is moderate. We identified room for improvement in reporting important information and statistical power to detect realistic effects. (4) Several studies show that people can regulate hemodynamic signals from cortical brain regions with fNIRS-neurofeedback and (5) these studies indicate the feasibility of modulating motor control and prefrontal brain functioning in healthy participants and ameliorating symptoms in clinical populations (stroke, ADHD, autism, and social anxiety). However, valid conclusions about specificity or potential clinical utility are premature. Conclusion: Due to the advantages of practicability and relatively low cost, fNIRS-neurofeedback might provide a suitable and powerful alternative to EEG and fMRI neurofeedback and has great potential for clinical translation of neurofeedback. Together with more rigorous research and reporting practices, further methodological improvements may lead to a more solid understanding of fNIRS-neurofeedback. Future research will benefit from exploiting the advantages of fNIRS, which offers unique opportunities for neurofeedback research.
Background: The effects of electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-neurofeedback on brain activation and behaviors have been studied extensively in the past. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback (fNIRS-neurofeedback). FNIRS is a functional neuroimaging technique based on brain hemodynamics, which is easy to use, portable, inexpensive, and has reduced sensitivity to movement artifacts. Method: We provide the first systematic review and database of fNIRS-neurofeedback studies, synthesizing findings from 22 peer-reviewed studies (including a total of N = 441 participants; 337 healthy, 104 patients). We (1) give a comprehensive overview of how fNIRS-neurofeedback training protocols were implemented, (2) review the online signal-processing methods used, (3) evaluate the quality of studies using pre-set methodological and reporting quality criteria and also present statistical sensitivity/power analyses, (4) investigate the effectiveness of fNIRS-neurofeedback in modulating brain activation, and (5) review its effectiveness in changing behavior in healthy and pathological populations. Results and discussion: (1-2) Published studies are heterogeneous (e.g., neurofeedback targets, investigated populations, applied training protocols, and methods). (3) Large randomized controlled trials are still lacking. In view of the novelty of the field, the quality of the published studies is moderate. We identified room for improvement in reporting important information and statistical power to detect realistic effects. (4) Several studies show that people can regulate hemodynamic signals from cortical brain regions with fNIRS-neurofeedback and (5) these studies indicate the feasibility of modulating motor control and prefrontal brain functioning in healthy participants and ameliorating symptoms in clinical populations (stroke, ADHD, autism, and social anxiety). However, valid conclusions about specificity or potential clinical utility are premature. Conclusion: Due to the advantages of practicability and relatively low cost, fNIRS-neurofeedback might provide a suitable and powerful alternative to EEG and fMRI neurofeedback and has great potential for clinical translation of neurofeedback. Together with more rigorous research and reporting practices, further methodological improvements may lead to a more solid understanding of fNIRS-neurofeedback. Future research will benefit from exploiting the advantages of fNIRS, which offers unique opportunities for neurofeedback research.
Authors: Ranganatha Sitaram; Tomas Ros; Luke Stoeckel; Sven Haller; Frank Scharnowski; Jarrod Lewis-Peacock; Nikolaus Weiskopf; Maria Laura Blefari; Mohit Rana; Ethan Oblak; Niels Birbaumer; James Sulzer Journal: Nat Rev Neurosci Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 34.870
Authors: S Ogawa; D W Tank; R Menon; J M Ellermann; S G Kim; H Merkle; K Ugurbil Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1992-07-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tania M Pollok; Anna Kaiser; Eline J Kraaijenvanger; Maximilian Monninger; Daniel Brandeis; Tobias Banaschewski; Simon B Eickhoff; Nathalie E Holz Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 9.052