Neurofeedback for Cognitive Enhancement, Intervention and Brain Plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurofeedback has been employed in recent years as a cognitive learning approach to enhance brain processes for therapeutic or recreational reasons. It involves teaching people to monitor their own brain activity and adjust it in the ways they see fit. The central idea is that by exerting this kind of command over a particular form of brain activity, one can improve the cognitive abilities that are normally associated with it, and one can also cause certain functional and structural transformations in the brain system, assisted by the neuronal plasticity and learning effects. Herein, we discuss the theoretical underpinnings of neurofeedback and outline the practical applications of this technique in clinical and experimental settings. Here, we take a look at the alterations in reinforcement learning cortical networks that have occurred as a result of neurofeedback training, as well as the more general impacts of neurofeedback on certain regions of the brain. Finally, we discuss the current obstacles that neurofeedback research must overcome, such as the need to quantify the temporal neorofeedback dynamics and effects, relate its behavioral patterns to daily life routines, formulate effective controls to differential placebo from actual neurofeedbackimapcts, and enhance the processing of cortical signal to attain fine-grained real-time modeling of cognitive functionalities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".