Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ninaus, Manuel, Kober, Silvia E., Witte, Matthias, Koschutnig, Karl, Stangl, Matthias, Neuper, Christa, Wood, Guilherme
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24421765
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00914
_version_ 1782297016615829504
author Ninaus, Manuel
Kober, Silvia E.
Witte, Matthias
Koschutnig, Karl
Stangl, Matthias
Neuper, Christa
Wood, Guilherme
author_facet Ninaus, Manuel
Kober, Silvia E.
Witte, Matthias
Koschutnig, Karl
Stangl, Matthias
Neuper, Christa
Wood, Guilherme
author_sort Ninaus, Manuel
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3872730
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38727302014-01-13 Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training Ninaus, Manuel Kober, Silvia E. Witte, Matthias Koschutnig, Karl Stangl, Matthias Neuper, Christa Wood, Guilherme Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3872730/ /pubmed/24421765 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00914 Text en Copyright © 2013 Ninaus, Kober, Witte, Koschutnig, Stangl, Neuper and Wood. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Ninaus, Manuel
Kober, Silvia E.
Witte, Matthias
Koschutnig, Karl
Stangl, Matthias
Neuper, Christa
Wood, Guilherme
Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title_full Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title_fullStr Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title_full_unstemmed Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title_short Neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
title_sort neural substrates of cognitive control under the belief of getting neurofeedback training
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872730/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24421765
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00914
work_keys_str_mv AT ninausmanuel neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT kobersilviae neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT wittematthias neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT koschutnigkarl neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT stanglmatthias neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT neuperchrista neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining
AT woodguilherme neuralsubstratesofcognitivecontrolunderthebeliefofgettingneurofeedbacktraining