% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Kohl:877956,
author = {Kohl, Simon H. and Mehler, David M. A. and Lührs, Michael
and Thibault, Robert T. and Konrad, Kerstin and Sorger,
Bettina},
title = {{T}he {P}otential of {F}unctional {N}ear-{I}nfrared
{S}pectroscopy-{B}ased {N}eurofeedback—{A} {S}ystematic
{R}eview and {R}ecommendations for {B}est {P}ractice},
journal = {Frontiers in neuroscience},
volume = {14},
issn = {1662-453X},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-02535},
pages = {594},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Background: The effects of electroencephalography (EEG) and
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-neurofeedback
on brain activation and behaviors have been studied
extensively in the past. More recently, researchers have
begun to investigate the effects of functional near-infrared
spectroscopy-based neurofeedback (fNIRS-neurofeedback).
FNIRS is a functional neuroimaging technique based on brain
hemodynamics, which is easy to use, portable, inexpensive,
and has reduced sensitivity to movement artifacts.Method: We
provide the first systematic review and database of
fNIRS-neurofeedback studies, synthesizing findings from 22
peer-reviewed studies (including a total of N=441
participants; 337 healthy, 104 patients). We (1) give a
comprehensive overview of how fNIRS-neurofeedback training
protocols were implemented, (2) review the online
signal-processing methods used, (3) evaluate the quality of
studies using pre-set methodological and reporting quality
criteria and also present statistical sensitivity/power
analyses, (4) investigate the effectiveness of
fNIRS-neurofeedback in modulating brain activation, and (5)
review its effectiveness in changing behavior in healthy and
pathological populations.Results and discussion: (1-2)
Published studies are heterogeneous (e.g., neurofeedback
targets, investigated populations, applied training
protocols, and methods). (3) Large randomized controlled
trials are still lacking. In view of the novelty of the
field, the quality of the published studies is moderate. We
identified room for improvement in reporting important
information and statistical power to detect realistic
effects. (4) Several studies show that people can regulate
hemodynamic signals from cortical brain regions with
fNIRS-neurofeedback and (5) these studies indicate the
feasibility of modulating motor control and prefrontal brain
functioning in healthy participants and ameliorating
symptoms in clinical populations (stroke, ADHD, autism, and
social anxiety). However, valid conclusions about
specificity or potential clinical utility are
premature.Conclusion: Due to the advantages of
practicability and relatively low cost, fNIRS-neurofeedback
might provide a suitable and powerful alternative to EEG and
fMRI neurofeedback and has great potential for clinical
translation of neurofeedback. Together with more rigorous
research and reporting practices, further methodological
improvements may lead to a more solid understanding of
fNIRS-neurofeedback. Future research will benefit from
exploiting the advantages of fNIRS, which offers unique
opportunities for neurofeedback research.},
cin = {INM-11},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-11-20170113},
pnm = {899 - ohne Topic (POF3-899)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-899},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {32848528},
UT = {WOS:000558856700001},
doi = {10.3389/fnins.2020.00594},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/877956},
}