↓ Skip to main content

Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00914
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Ninaus, Silvia E. Kober, Matthias Witte, Karl Koschutnig, Matthias Stangl, Christa Neuper, Guilherme Wood

Abstract

Learning to modulate one's own brain activity is the fundament of neurofeedback (NF) applications. Besides the neural networks directly involved in the generation and modulation of the neurophysiological parameter being specifically trained, more general determinants of NF efficacy such as self-referential processes and cognitive control have been frequently disregarded. Nonetheless, deeper insight into these cognitive mechanisms and their neuronal underpinnings sheds light on various open NF related questions concerning individual differences, brain-computer interface (BCI) illiteracy as well as a more general model of NF learning. In this context, we investigated the neuronal substrate of these more general regulatory mechanisms that are engaged when participants believe that they are receiving NF. Twenty healthy participants (40-63 years, 10 female) performed a sham NF paradigm during fMRI scanning. All participants were novices to NF-experiments and were instructed to voluntarily modulate their own brain activity based on a visual display of moving color bars. However, the bar depicted a recording and not the actual brain activity of participants. Reports collected at the end of the experiment indicate that participants were unaware of the sham feedback. In comparison to a passive watching condition, bilateral insula, anterior cingulate cortex and supplementary motor and dorsomedial and lateral prefrontal areas were activated when participants actively tried to control the bar. In contrast, when merely watching moving bars, increased activation in the left angular gyrus was observed. These results show that the intention to control a moving bar is sufficient to engage a broad frontoparietal and cingulo-opercular network involved in cognitive control. The results of the present study indicate that tasks such as those generally employed in NF training recruit the neuronal correlates of cognitive control even when only sham NF is presented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 216 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 22%
Student > Master 41 18%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 4%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 57 25%
Neuroscience 46 20%
Engineering 23 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 6%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 44 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2014.
All research outputs
#6,874,962
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,913
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,322
of 280,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#411
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 280,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.