Literature DB >> 33031860

Believing is achieving - On the role of treatment expectation in neurofeedback applications.

Michael Schönenberg1, Anna-Lena Weingärtner2, Katja Weimer3, Jonathan Scheeff2.   

Abstract

In neurofeedback applications, neural activity is recorded, processed in real-time and fed back to the user in order to facilitate self-regulation of the putative neural mechanisms that underlie cognition and behavior. Numerous studies suggest that neurofeedback interventions are an efficacious treatment particularly for patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In recent years, however, findings of several well-controlled studies raised doubts concerning the proposed mechanism of action behind the behavioral effect of neurofeedback. This study investigated the impact of expectation on the efficacy of a sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) training. In a within-subjects design 30 blinded volunteers with ADHD symptoms received a standard SMR training session after inducing no (no-expectancy condition), positive (placebo condition), and negative (nocebo condition) expectations regarding the effectiveness of neurofeedback (by telling them that they would train a specific frequency band that was previously shown to be either unrelated to attention, should improve attention, or interfere with attentional processes). After each training, participants were presented with a cognitive test and subsequently requested to rate their performance on it. We could show that participants were able to successfully modify their EEG signal during training. Further, we found an effect over trainings on objective attentional performance. Most importantly, we found that the expectancy of positive or negative treatment effects considerably changed participants' perception of neurofeedback's efficacy even in the absence of any objective evidence. This study presents strong first evidence for a substantial effect of self-confirming response expectancies as one factor underlying the efficacy of neurofeedback. Future research has to carefully consider the impact of such psychosocial mechanisms when evaluating the (specific) efficacy of neuromodulatory treatments.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ADHD; Expectancy; Neurofeedback; Non-specific effects

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33031860     DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry        ISSN: 0278-5846            Impact factor:   5.067


  3 in total

Review 1.  Neurotherapeutics for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Review.

Authors:  Katya Rubia; Samuel Westwood; Pascal-M Aggensteiner; Daniel Brandeis
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-08-21       Impact factor: 7.666

2.  One-Year Follow-Up of Healthy Older Adults with Electroencephalographic Risk for Neurocognitive Disorder After Neurofeedback Training.

Authors:  Graciela C Alatorre-Cruz; Thalía Fernández; Susana A Castro-Chavira; Mauricio González-López; Sergio M Sánchez-Moguel; Juan Silva-Pereyra
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 4.472

3.  Electrodermal Activity Biofeedback Alters Evolving Functional Brain Networks in People With Epilepsy, but in a Non-specific Manner.

Authors:  Sophia Schach; Thorsten Rings; Madeleine Bregulla; Juri-Alexander Witt; Timo Bröhl; Rainer Surges; Randi von Wrede; Klaus Lehnertz; Christoph Helmstaedter
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 4.677

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.