Title |
Unimodal Versus Bimodal EEG-fMRI Neurofeedback of a Motor Imagery Task
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00193 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lorraine Perronnet, Anatole Lécuyer, Marsel Mano, Elise Bannier, Fabien Lotte, Maureen Clerc, Christian Barillot |
Abstract |
Neurofeedback is a promising tool for brain rehabilitation and peak performance training. Neurofeedback approaches usually rely on a single brain imaging modality such as EEG or fMRI. Combining these modalities for neurofeedback training could allow to provide richer information to the subject and could thus enable him/her to achieve faster and more specific self-regulation. Yet unimodal and multimodal neurofeedback have never been compared before. In the present work, we introduce a simultaneous EEG-fMRI experimental protocol in which participants performed a motor-imagery task in unimodal and bimodal NF conditions. With this protocol we were able to compare for the first time the effects of unimodal EEG-neurofeedback and fMRI-neurofeedback versus bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback by looking both at EEG and fMRI activations. We also propose a new feedback metaphor for bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback that integrates both EEG and fMRI signal in a single bi-dimensional feedback (a ball moving in 2D). Such a feedback is intended to relieve the cognitive load of the subject by presenting the bimodal neurofeedback task as a single regulation task instead of two. Additionally, this integrated feedback metaphor gives flexibility on defining a bimodal neurofeedback target. Participants were able to regulate activity in their motor regions in all NF conditions. Moreover, motor activations as revealed by offline fMRI analysis were stronger during EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback than during EEG-neurofeedback. This result suggests that EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback could be more specific or more engaging than EEG-neurofeedback. Our results also suggest that during EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback, participants tended to regulate more the modality that was harder to control. Taken together our results shed first light on the specific mechanisms of bimodal EEG-fMRI-neurofeedback and on its added-value as compared to unimodal EEG-neurofeedback and fMRI-neurofeedback. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 33% |
Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
Italy | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 110 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 21% |
Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
Researcher | 12 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
Other | 15 | 14% |
Unknown | 22 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience | 26 | 23% |
Psychology | 13 | 12% |
Engineering | 12 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 6% |
Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
Other | 19 | 17% |
Unknown | 29 | 26% |