↓ Skip to main content

19 Channel Z-Score and LORETA Neurofeedback: Does the Evidence Support the Hype?

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
19 Channel Z-Score and LORETA Neurofeedback: Does the Evidence Support the Hype?
Published in
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10484-018-9420-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Coben, D. Corydon Hammond, Martijn Arns

Abstract

Neurofeedback is a well-investigated treatment for ADHD and epilepsy, especially when restricted to standard protocols such as theta/beta, slow cortical potentials and sensori-motor rhythm neurofeedback. Advances in any field are welcome and other techniques are being pursued. Manufacturers and clinicians are marketing 'superior' neurofeedback approaches including 19 channel Z-score neurofeedback (ZNFB) and 3-D LORETA neurofeedback (with or without Z-scores; LNFB). We conducted a review of the empirical literature to determine if such claims were warranted. This review included the above search terms in Pubmed, Google scholar and any references that met our criteria from the ZNFB publication list and was restricted to group based studies examining improvement in a clinical population that underwent peer review (book chapters, magazine articles or conference presentations are not included since these are not peer reviewed). Fifteen relevant studies emerged with only six meeting our criterion. Based on review of these studies it was concluded that empirical validation of these approaches is sorely lacking. There is no empirical data that supports the notion that 19-channel z-score neurofeedback is effective or superior. The quality of studies for LNFB was better compared to ZNFB and some suggestion for efficacy was demonstrated for ADHD and Tinnitus distress. However, these findings need to be replicated, extended to other populations and have yet to show any "superiority." Our conclusions continue to emphasize the pervasive lack of evidence supporting these approaches to neurofeedback and the implications of this are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 23%
Psychology 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 35 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,995,039
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#80
of 355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,296
of 342,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.