EEG neurofeedback (EEG-NFB) is a promising tool for the treatment of depressive disorders. However, many methods for the presentation of neurobiological reactions are available and it is widely unknown which of these feedback options are preferrable. Moreover, the influence of motivation on NFB training success is insufficiently studied. This study analyzed the efficacy of a novel EEG protocol (FC3/Pz) based on findings for NFB in depression. The role of four feedback options (Rumination, Anxiety, Meditation Master, Moving Art) from the NFB software “Brain Assistant” and motivation in EEG-based NFB performance was studied. Regarding “Anxiety” and “Rumination” visual feedback was used to evoke emotions; reinforcement (both negative and positive operant conditioning) was continuous. Regarding “Meditation Master” visual feedback was combined with continuous positive reinforcement. Regarding “Moving Art” 20-min calm nature films with neutral character were used; both visual and auditive feedback were applied. The reinforcement was positive and continuous. 13 healthy participants completed 15 EEG sessions over four months combining simultaneous frontal (aims: reduction of theta-, alpha- and high beta-activity, increase of low and mid beta-activity) and parietal training (aims: reduction of theta-, alpha 1-, mid and high beta-activity, increase of alpha 2- and low beta-activity). We observed significantly more pronounced percentage change in the expected direction for Anxiety than Moving Art (mean difference = 3.32; p = 0.003). The association between motivation and performance was non-significant. Based on these results we conclude that feedback with both negative and positive operant conditioning and emotion evoking effects should be preferred.
KadoshKCStauntonG. A systematic review of the psychological factors that influence neurofeedback learning outcomes. Neuroimage. 2019;185:545‐555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.021
VivianiGVallesiA. EEG-neurofeedback and executive function enhancement in healthy adults: A systematic review. Psychophysiology. 2021;58(9):e13874. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13874
4.
Van DorenJArnsMHeinrichHVollebregtMAStrehlULooSK. Sustained effects of neurofeedback in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;28(3):293‐305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1121-4
5.
TrambaiolliLRKohlSHLindenDEJMehlerDMA. Neurofeedback training in major depressive disorder: A systematic review of clinical efficacy, study quality and reporting practices. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;125:33‐56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.015
6.
ZafarmandMFarahmandZOtaredN. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on effectiveness of neurofeedback for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Neurocase. 2022;28(1):29‐36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2021.2019790
7.
RahmaniEMahvelatiAAlizadehA,et al.Is neurofeedback effective in children with ADHD? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurocase. 2022;28(1):84‐95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2022.2027456
8.
Micoulaud-FranchiJAJeunetCPelissoloARosT. EEG Neurofeedback for anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders: A blueprint for a promising brain-based therapy. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021;23(12):84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01299-9
9.
LimaKHMGomesJSTucciAM. Electroencephaalographic neurofeedback as a tool for reducing harm and risk associated with alcohol use disorder: A critical review. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2022;41(3):594‐602. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13387
10.
MelnikovMY. The current evidence levels for biofeedback and neurofeedback interventions in treating depression: A narrative review. Neural Plast. 2021;2021: 8878857. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8878857
DrevetsWC. Neuroimaging and neuropathological studies of depression: Implications for the cognitive-emotional features of mood disorders. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001;11(2):240‐249. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4388(00)00203-8
14.
MaybergHS. Limbic-cortical dysregulation: A proposed model of depression. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1997;9(3):471‐481. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.9.3.471
15.
SeminowiczDAMaybergHSMcIntoshAR,et al.Limbic-frontal circuitry in major depression: A path modeling metanalysis. Neuroimage. 2004;22(1):409‐418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.01.015
16.
HuZLiuHWengXNorthoffG. Is there a valence-specific pattern in emotional conflict in major depressive disorder? An exploratory psychological study. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031983
17.
Micoulaud-FranchiJAMcGonigalALopezRDaudetCKotwasIBartolomeiF. Electroencephalographic neurofeedback: Level of evidence in mental and brain disorders and suggestions for good clinical practice. Neurophysiol Clin. 2015; 45(6):423‐433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2015.10.077
18.
ChoiSWChiSEChungSYKimJWAhnCYKimHT. Is alpha wave neurofeedback effective with randomized clinical trials in depression? A pilot study. Neuropsychobiology. 2011;63(1):43‐51. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322290
19.
PeetersFOehlenMRonnerJvan OsJLousbergR. Neurofeedback as a treatment for major depressive disorder--a pilot study. PLoS One. 2014;9(3): e91837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091837
20.
EscolanoCNavarro-GilMGarcia-CampayoJMinguezJ. EEG-based upper-alpha neurofeedback for cognitive enhancement in major depressive disorder: A preliminary, uncontrolled study. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:6293‐6296. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610992
21.
CheonE-JKooB-HChoiJ-H. The efficacy of neurofeedback in patients with major depressive disorder: An open labeled prospective study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2016;41(1):103‐110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-015-9315-8
22.
WangS-YLinI-MFanS-Y, et al.The effects of alpha asymmetry and high-beta down-training neurofeedback for patients with the major depressive disorder and anxiety symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2019;257(1): 287‐296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.026
23.
ChenT-CLinI-M. The learning effects and curves during high beta downtraining neurofeedback for patients with major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2020;266:235‐242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.175
24.
LindenDEJ. Neurofeedback and networks of depression. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2014;16(1):103 − 1112. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2014.16.1/ dlinden
25.
BiverFGoldmanSDelvenneV, et al.Frontal and parietal metabolic disturbances in unipolar depression. Biol Psychiatry. 1994;36(6):381‐388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3223(94)91213-0
26.
LaiC-HWuY-THouY-M. Functional network-based statistics in depression: Theory of mind subnetwork and importance of parietal region. J Affect Disord. 2017;217:132‐137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.073
27.
FingelkurtsAAFingelkurtsAARytsäläHSuominenKIsometsäEKähkönenS. Impaired functional connectivity at EEG alpha and theta frequency bands in major depression. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28(3):247‐261. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20275
28.
SchoenbergPLASpeckensAEM. Modulation of induced frontocentral theta (fm-θ) event-related (de-)synchronisation dynamics following mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in major depressive disorder. Cogn Neurodyn. 2014; 8(5):373‐388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-014-9294-0
29.
BaehrERosenfeldJPBaehrR. The clinical use of an alpha asymmetry protocol in the neurofeedback treatment of depression: Two case studies. J Neurother. 1997;2(3):10‐23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v02n03_02
30.
BaehrERosenfeldJPBaehrR. Clinical use of an alpha asymmetry neurofeedback protocol in the treatment of mood disorders: Follow-up study one to five years post therapy. J Neurother. 2001;4(4):11‐18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J184v04n04_03
SherlinLHArnsMLubarJ,et al.Neurofeedback and basic learning theory: Implications for research and practice. J Neurother. 2011;15(4):292‐304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10874208.2011623089
35.
SitaramRRosTStoeckelL, et al.Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18(2):86‐100. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.164
Enriquez-GeppertSHusterRJHerrmannCS. EEG-Neurofeedback as a tool to modulate cognition and behavior: A review tutorial. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00051
38.
FedeSDeanSFManuweeraTMomenanR. A guide to literature informed decisions in the design of real time fMRI neurofeedback studies: A systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:60. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00060
39.
MathiakKAAlawiEMKoushY, et al.Social reward improves the voluntary control over localized brain activity in fMRI-based neurofeedback training. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:136. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00136
40.
HartwellKJPrisciandaroJJBorckardtJLiXBGeorgeMSBradyKT. Real-time fMRI in the treatment of nicotine dependence: A conceptual review and pilot studies. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(2):501‐509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028215
41.
HarmelechTPremingerSWertmanEMalachR. The dayafter effect: Long term, hebbian-like restructuring of resting-state fmri patterns induced by a single epoch of cortical activation. J Neurosci. 2013;33(22):9488‐9497. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5911-12.2013
NijboerFBirbaumerNKüblerA. The influence of psychological state and motivation on brain-computer interface performance in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - a longitudinal study. Front Neurosci. 2010;4(55):1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2010.00055
44.
Enriquez-GeppertSHusterRJScharfenortRMokomZNZimmermannJHerrmannCS. Modulation of frontal-midline theta by neurofeedback. Biol Psychol. 2014;95:59‐69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.02.019
BeckATSteerRABrownGK. Manual for the Beck depression inventory-II. Psychological Corporation.1996.
47.
BackhausJJunghannsKBroocksARiemannDHohagenF. Test-retest reliability and validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in primary insomnia. J Psychosom Res. 2002;53(3):737‐740. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00330-6
SchulzPSchlotzWBeckerP. Trierer Inventar zum Chronischen Stress (TICS) [Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS)]. Hogrefe; 2004.
50.
SchwenkmezgerPHodappV. Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Ärger und Ärgerausdruck. A German adaptation of the state-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI). Z Klin Psychol Psychopathol Psychother. 1991;39(1):63‐68.
51.
LauxLGlanzmannPSchaffnerPSpielbergerC. Das State-Trait-Angstinventar (Testmappe mit Handanweisung, Fragebogen STAI-G Form X 1 und Fragebogen STAI-G Form X 2). Beltz, 1981.
52.
KühnerCBürgerCKellerFHautzingerM. [Reliability and validity of the revised beck depression inventory (BDI-II). Results from German Samples.] [Article in German] Nervenarzt. 2007;78(6):651‐656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-006-2098-7
53.
FrankeGH. Symptom-Checkliste von L.R. Derogatis: SCL-90-R. (2nd edition). Hogrefe; 2002.
54.
MüllerCBongardSHeiligtagUHodappV. Das State-Trait-Ärgerausdrucks-Inventar (STAXI) in der klinischen Anwendung: Reliabilität und faktorielle Validität. Z Klin Psychol Psychother. 2001;30(3):172‐181. https://doi.org/10.1026/0084-5345.30.3.172
55.
JulianLJ. Measures of anxiety: State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI), beck anxiety inventory (BAI), and hospital anxiety and depression scale-anxiety (HADS-A). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(Suppl.11):S467‐S472. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20561
56.
JaspersHH. The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1958;10:371‐375.
RaynerGJacksonGWilsonS. Cognition-related brain networks underpin the symptoms of unipolar depression: Evidence from a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;61:53‐65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.022
