Determinants of Real-Time fMRI Neurofeedback Performance and Improvement – a Machine Learning Mega-Analysis
Author:
Haugg AmelieORCID, Renz Fabian M., Nicholson Andrew A., Lor Cindy, Götzendorfer Sebastian J., Sladky RonaldORCID, Skouras StavrosORCID, McDonald Amalia, Craddock CameronORCID, Hellrung LydiaORCID, Kirschner MatthiasORCID, Herdener MarcusORCID, Koush YuryORCID, Papoutsi MarinaORCID, Keynan JackobORCID, Hendler TalmaORCID, Kadosh Kathrin CohenORCID, Zich CatharinaORCID, Kohl Simon H.ORCID, Hallschmid ManfredORCID, MacInnes Jeff, Adcock AlisonORCID, Dickerson Kathryn, Chen Nan-KueiORCID, Young KymberlyORCID, Bodurka JerzyORCID, Marxen MichaelORCID, Yao ShuxiaORCID, Becker BenjaminORCID, Auer TiborORCID, Schweizer RenateORCID, Pamplona GustavoORCID, Lanius Ruth A., Emmert KirstenORCID, Haller SvenORCID, Van De Ville DimitriORCID, Kim Dong-YoulORCID, Lee Jong-Hwan, Marins TheoORCID, Fukuda MegumiORCID, Sorger BettinaORCID, Kamp TabeaORCID, Liew Sook-LeiORCID, Veit RalfORCID, Spetter MaartjeORCID, Weiskopf NikolausORCID, Scharnowski FrankORCID, Steyrl DavidORCID
Abstract
AbstractReal-time fMRI neurofeedback is an increasingly popular neuroimaging technique that allows an individual to gain control over his/her own brain signals, which can lead to improvements in behavior in healthy participants as well as to improvements of clinical symptoms in patient populations. However, a considerably large ratio of participants undergoing neurofeedback training do not learn to control their own brain signals and, consequently, do not benefit from neurofeedback interventions, which limits clinical efficacy of neurofeedback interventions. As neurofeedback success varies between studies and participants, it is important to identify factors that might influence neurofeedback success. Here, for the first time, we employed a big data machine learning approach to investigate the influence of 20 different design-specific (e.g. activity vs. connectivity feedback), region of interest-specific (e.g. cortical vs. subcortical) and subject-specific factors (e.g. age) on neurofeedback performance and improvement in 608 participants from 28 independent experiments.With a classification accuracy of 60% (considerably different from chance level), we identified two factors that significantly influenced neurofeedback performance: Both the inclusion of a pre-training no-feedback run before neurofeedback training and neurofeedback training of patients as compared to healthy participants were associated with better neurofeedback performance. The positive effect of pre-training no-feedback runs on neurofeedback performance might be due to the familiarization of participants with the neurofeedback setup and the mental imagery task before neurofeedback training runs. Better performance of patients as compared to healthy participants might be driven by higher motivation of patients, higher ranges for the regulation of dysfunctional brain signals, or a more extensive piloting of clinical experimental paradigms. Due to the large heterogeneity of our dataset, these findings likely generalize across neurofeedback studies, thus providing guidance for designing more efficient neurofeedback studies specifically for improving clinical neurofeedback-based interventions. To facilitate the development of data-driven recommendations for specific design details and subpopulations the field would benefit from stronger engagement in Open Science and data sharing.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference82 articles.
1. Alkoby, O. , Abu-Rmileh, A. , Shriki, O. , & Todder, D. (2017). Can we predict who will respond to neurofeedback? A review of the inefficacy problem and existing predictors for successful EEG neurofeedback learning. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.050 2. Training Efficiency and Transfer Success in an Extended Real-Time Functional MRI Neurofeedback Training of the Somatomotor Cortex of Healthy Subjects;Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,2015 3. A network engineering perspective on probing and perturbing cognition with neurofeedback 4. Bauer, C. C. C. , Okano, K. , Gosh, S. S. , Lee, Y. J. , Melero, H. , Angeles, C. de los , & Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. (2020). Real-time fMRI neurofeedback reduces auditory hallucinations and modulates resting state connectivity of involved brain regions: Part 2: Default mode network – preliminary evidence. Psychiatry Research, 284(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112770 5. Direct Instrumental Conditioning of Neural Activity Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Reward Feedback
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|