MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385490480 · doi:10.3390/life13081675

Assessing Consciousness through Neurofeedback and Neuromodulation: Possibilities and Challenges

2023· review· en· W4385490480 on OpenAlexaff
Martina Vatrano, Idan Efim Nemirovsky, Paolo Tonin, Francesco Riganello

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurofeedbackBrain–computer interfaceNeuromodulationElectroencephalographyTranscranial direct-current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationConsciousnessSensorimotor rhythmNeurostimulationPsychologyBrain activity and meditationBrain stimulationNeuroscienceStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurofeedback is a non-invasive therapeutic approach that has gained traction in recent years, showing promising results for various neurological and psychiatric conditions. It involves real-time monitoring of brain activity, allowing individuals to gain control over their own brainwaves and improve cognitive performance or alleviate symptoms. The use of electroencephalography (EEG), such as brain-computer interface (BCI), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), has been instrumental in developing neurofeedback techniques. However, the application of these tools in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) presents unique challenges. In this narrative review, we explore the use of neurofeedback in treating patients with DoC. More specifically, we discuss the advantages and challenges of using tools such as EEG neurofeedback, tDCS, TMS, and BCI for these conditions. Ultimately, we hope to provide the neuroscientific community with a comprehensive overview of neurofeedback and emphasize its potential therapeutic applications in severe cases of impaired consciousness levels.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.478
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207