↓ Skip to main content

Unimodal Versus Bimodal EEG-fMRI Neurofeedback of a Motor Imagery Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%
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 07 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,210,350
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,054
of 7,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,360
of 310,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#96
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 310,172 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.