MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-Time Functional MRI in the Treatment of Mental Health Disorders

2022· review· en· W4206927827 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Taschereau‐Dumouchel, Cody A. Cushing, Hakwan Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeurofeedbackPsychologyMental healthFunctional magnetic resonance imagingBrain activity and meditationIntervention (counseling)MainstreamPsychotherapistNeuroscienceClinical psychologyPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple mental disorders have been associated with dysregulation of precise brain processes. However, few therapeutic approaches can correct such specific patterns of brain activity. Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, many researchers have hoped that this feat could be achieved by closed-loop brain imaging approaches, such as neurofeedback, that aim to modulate brain activity directly. However, neurofeedback never gained mainstream acceptance in mental health, in part due to methodological considerations. In this review, we argue that, when contemporary methodological guidelines are followed, neurofeedback is one of the few intervention methods in psychology that can be assessed in double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Furthermore, using new advances in machine learning and statistics, it is now possible to target very precise patterns of brain activity for therapeutic purposes. We review the recent literature in functional magnetic resonance imaging neurofeedback and discuss current and future applications to mental health.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Clinical PsychologySame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207