EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback for motor neurorehabilitation in children and adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic interventions for children and young people with dystonia and dystonic/dyskinetic cerebral palsy are limited. EEG-based neurofeedback is emerging as a neurorehabilitation tool. This scoping review maps research investigating EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback in adults and children with neurological motor impairments, including augmentative strategies. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched up to 2023 for relevant studies. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 4380 identified studies, 133 were included, only three enrolling children. The most common diagnosis was adult-onset stroke (77%). Paradigms mostly involved upper limb motor imagery or motor attempt. Common neurofeedback modes included visual, haptic and/or electrical stimulation. EEG parameters varied widely and were often incompletely described. Two studies applied augmentative strategies. Outcome measures varied widely and included classification accuracy of the Brain-Computer Interface, degree of enhancement of mu rhythm modulation or other neurophysiological parameters, and clinical/motor outcome scores. Few studies investigated whether functional outcomes related specifically to the EEG-based neurofeedback. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence exploring EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback in individuals with movement disorders, especially in children. Further clarity of neurophysiological parameters is required to develop optimal paradigms for evaluating sensorimotor neurofeedback. SIGNIFICANCE: The expanding field of sensorimotor neurofeedback offers exciting potential as a non-invasive therapy. However, this needs to be balanced by robust study design and detailed methodological reporting to ensure reproducibility and validation that clinical improvements relate to induced neurophysiological changes.
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 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".