Cloud-Based Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurofeedback to Reduce the Negative Attentional Bias in Depression: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with depression show an attentional bias toward negatively valenced stimuli and thoughts. In this proof-of-concept study, we present a novel closed-loop neurofeedback procedure intended to remediate this bias. Internal attentional states were detected in real time by applying machine learning techniques to functional magnetic resonance imaging data on a cloud server; these attentional states were externalized using a visual stimulus that the participant could learn to control. We trained 15 participants with major depressive disorder and 12 healthy control participants over 3 functional magnetic resonance imaging sessions. Exploratory analysis showed that participants with major depressive disorder were initially more likely than healthy control participants to get stuck in negative attentional states, but this diminished with neurofeedback training relative to controls. Depression severity also decreased from pre- to posttraining. These results demonstrate that our method is sensitive to the negative attentional bias in major depressive disorder and showcase the potential of this novel technique as a treatment that can be evaluated in future clinical trials.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it