MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201890504 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw285

Neurofeedback Tunes Scale-Free Dynamics in Spontaneous Brain Activity

2016· article· en· W2201890504 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health ResearchLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsNeurofeedbackBrain activity and meditationDynamics (music)PopulationSynchronization (alternating current)Premovement neuronal activityResting state fMRIElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain oscillations exhibit long-range temporal correlations (LRTCs), which reflect the regularity of their fluctuations: low values representing more random (decorrelated) while high values more persistent (correlated) dynamics. LRTCs constitute supporting evidence that the brain operates near criticality, a state where neuronal activities are balanced between order and randomness. Here, healthy adults used closed-loop brain training (neurofeedback, NFB) to reduce the amplitude of alpha oscillations, producing a significant increase in spontaneous LRTCs post-training. This effect was reproduced in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, where abnormally random dynamics were reversed by NFB, correlating with significant improvements in hyperarousal. Notably, regions manifesting abnormally low LRTCs (i.e., excessive randomness) normalized toward healthy population levels, consistent with theoretical predictions about self-organized criticality. Hence, when exposed to appropriate training, spontaneous cortical activity reveals a residual capacity for "self-tuning" its own temporal complexity, despite manifesting the abnormal dynamics seen in individuals with psychiatric disorder. Lastly, we observed an inverse-U relationship between strength of LRTC and oscillation amplitude, suggesting a breakdown of long-range dependence at high/low synchronization extremes, in line with recent computational models. Together, our findings offer a broader mechanistic framework for motivating research and clinical applications of NFB, encompassing disorders with perturbed LRTCs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207