Seyhmus Guler1, Alexander L Cohen2,3, Onur Afacan2, Simon K Warfield2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, Boston, USA. 2. Computational Radiology Lab, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, Boston, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, Boston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional MRI neurofeedback (fMRI-nf) leverages the brain's ability to self-regulate its own activity. However, self-regulation processes engaged during fMRI-nf are incompletely understood. Here, we used matched feedback in an fMRI-nf experimental protocol to investigate whether brain processes recognize true neurofeedback signals. METHODS: We implemented an existing fMRI-nf protocol to train lateralized motor activity using a finger-tap task in conjunction with real-time feedback. Twelve healthy, right-handed, adult participants were assigned into age- and sex-matched active and sham study groups. Matched participant pairs received the same visual feedback, based on brain activity of the participant from the active group. We compared group-averaged activation maps before, during, and after neurofeedback, and analyzed changes in lateralized motor activity due to neurofeedback. RESULTS: Active and sham groups demonstrated different brain activation to the same feedback during neurofeedback. In particular, there was higher activation in visual cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, and right inferior frontal gyrus in the active group compared to the sham group. Conversely, sham participants demonstrated higher activation in anterior cingulate cortex, left frontal pole, and posterior superior temporal gyrus. Despite differing brain activations during neurofeedback, neither group demonstrated significant improvement in lateralized motor activity from pre to postfeedback scan in the same session. We also observed no significant difference between pre and postfeedback activation maps, suggesting that no significant finger-tap related functional reorganization had occurred. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that fMRI neurofeedback paradigms that monitor or incorporate activity from regions reported here would provide enhanced efficacy for research investigation and clinical intervention.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional MRI neurofeedback (fMRI-nf) leverages the brain's ability to self-regulate its own activity. However, self-regulation processes engaged during fMRI-nf are incompletely understood. Here, we used matched feedback in an fMRI-nf experimental protocol to investigate whether brain processes recognize true neurofeedback signals. METHODS: We implemented an existing fMRI-nf protocol to train lateralized motor activity using a finger-tap task in conjunction with real-time feedback. Twelve healthy, right-handed, adult participants were assigned into age- and sex-matched active and sham study groups. Matched participant pairs received the same visual feedback, based on brain activity of the participant from the active group. We compared group-averaged activation maps before, during, and after neurofeedback, and analyzed changes in lateralized motor activity due to neurofeedback. RESULTS: Active and sham groups demonstrated different brain activation to the same feedback during neurofeedback. In particular, there was higher activation in visual cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, and right inferior frontal gyrus in the active group compared to the sham group. Conversely, sham participants demonstrated higher activation in anterior cingulate cortex, left frontal pole, and posterior superior temporal gyrus. Despite differing brain activations during neurofeedback, neither group demonstrated significant improvement in lateralized motor activity from pre to postfeedback scan in the same session. We also observed no significant difference between pre and postfeedback activation maps, suggesting that no significant finger-tap related functional reorganization had occurred. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that fMRI neurofeedback paradigms that monitor or incorporate activity from regions reported here would provide enhanced efficacy for research investigation and clinical intervention.
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: Krzysztof Gorgolewski; Christopher D Burns; Cindee Madison; Dav Clark; Yaroslav O Halchenko; Michael L Waskom; Satrajit S Ghosh Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Tibor Auer; Vince D Calhoun; R Cameron Craddock; Samir Das; Eugene P Duff; Guillaume Flandin; Satrajit S Ghosh; Tristan Glatard; Yaroslav O Halchenko; Daniel A Handwerker; Michael Hanke; David Keator; Xiangrui Li; Zachary Michael; Camille Maumet; B Nolan Nichols; Thomas E Nichols; John Pellman; Jean-Baptiste Poline; Ariel Rokem; Gunnar Schaefer; Vanessa Sochat; William Triplett; Jessica A Turner; Gaël Varoquaux; Russell A Poldrack Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Russell A Poldrack; Krzysztof J Gorgolewski; Oscar Esteban; Christopher J Markiewicz; Ross W Blair; Craig A Moodie; A Ilkay Isik; Asier Erramuzpe; James D Kent; Mathias Goncalves; Elizabeth DuPre; Madeleine Snyder; Hiroyuki Oya; Satrajit S Ghosh; Jessey Wright; Joke Durnez Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 28.547