| 1. |
- Haugg, Amelie, et al.
(författare)
-
Can we predict real-time fMRI neurofeedback learning success from pretraining brain activity?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Brain Mapping. - : Wiley. - 1065-9471 .- 1097-0193. ; 41:14, s. 3839-3854
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Neurofeedback training has been shown to influence behavior in healthy participants as well as to alleviate clinical symptoms in neurological, psychosomatic, and psychiatric patient populations. However, many real-time fMRI neurofeedback studies report large inter-individual differences in learning success. The factors that cause this vast variability between participants remain unknown and their identification could enhance treatment success. Thus, here we employed a meta-analytic approach including data from 24 different neurofeedback studies with a total of 401 participants, including 140 patients, to determine whether levels of activity in target brain regions during pretraining functional localizer or no-feedback runs (i.e., self-regulation in the absence of neurofeedback) could predict neurofeedback learning success. We observed a slightly positive correlation between pretraining activity levels during a functional localizer run and neurofeedback learning success, but we were not able to identify common brain-based success predictors across our diverse cohort of studies. Therefore, advances need to be made in finding robust models and measures of general neurofeedback learning, and in increasing the current study database to allow for investigating further factors that might influence neurofeedback learning.
|
|
| 2. |
- Haugg, Amelie, et al.
(författare)
-
Predictors of real-time fMRI neurofeedback performance and improvement - A machine learning mega-analysis.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: NeuroImage. - : Elsevier. - 1053-8119 .- 1095-9572. ; 237
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Real-time fMRI neurofeedback is an increasingly popular neuroimaging technique that allows an individual to gain control over his/her own brain signals, which can lead to improvements in behavior in healthy participants as well as to improvements of clinical symptoms in patient populations. However, a considerably large ratio of participants undergoing neurofeedback training do not learn to control their own brain signals and, consequently, do not benefit from neurofeedback interventions, which limits clinical efficacy of neurofeedback interventions. As neurofeedback success varies between studies and participants, it is important to identify factors that might influence neurofeedback success. Here, for the first time, we employed a big data machine learning approach to investigate the influence of 20 different design-specific (e.g. activity vs. connectivity feedback), region of interest-specific (e.g. cortical vs. subcortical) and subject-specific factors (e.g. age) on neurofeedback performance and improvement in 608 participants from 28 independent experiments. With a classification accuracy of 60% (considerably different from chance level), we identified two factors that significantly influenced neurofeedback performance: Both the inclusion of a pre-training no-feedback run before neurofeedback training and neurofeedback training of patients as compared to healthy participants were associated with better neurofeedback performance. The positive effect of pre-training no-feedback runs on neurofeedback performance might be due to the familiarization of participants with the neurofeedback setup and the mental imagery task before neurofeedback training runs. Better performance of patients as compared to healthy participants might be driven by higher motivation of patients, higher ranges for the regulation of dysfunctional brain signals, or a more extensive piloting of clinical experimental paradigms. Due to the large heterogeneity of our dataset, these findings likely generalize across neurofeedback studies, thus providing guidance for designing more efficient neurofeedback studies specifically for improving clinical neurofeedback-based interventions. To facilitate the development of data-driven recommendations for specific design details and subpopulations the field would benefit from stronger engagement in open science research practices and data sharing.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sangchooli, Arshiya, et al.
(författare)
-
Parameter Space and Potential for Biomarker Development in 25 Years of fMRI Drug Cue Reactivity
- 2024
-
Ingår i: JAMA psychiatry. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6238 .- 2168-622X.
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance In the last 25 years, functional magnetic resonance imaging drug cue reactivity (FDCR) studies have characterized some core aspects in the neurobiology of drug addiction. However, no FDCR-derived biomarkers have been approved for treatment development or clinical adoption. Traversing this translational gap requires a systematic assessment of the FDCR literature evidence, its heterogeneity, and an evaluation of possible clinical uses of FDCR-derived biomarkers. Objective To summarize the state of the field of FDCR, assess their potential for biomarker development, and outline a clear process for biomarker qualification to guide future research and validation efforts. Evidence Review The PubMed and Medline databases were searched for every original FDCR investigation published from database inception until December 2022. Collected data covered study design, participant characteristics, FDCR task design, and whether each study provided evidence that might potentially help develop susceptibility, diagnostic, response, prognostic, predictive, or severity biomarkers for 1 or more addictive disorders. Findings There were 415 FDCR studies published between 1998 and 2022. Most focused on nicotine (122 [29.6%]), alcohol (120 [29.2%]), or cocaine (46 [11.1%]), and most used visual cues (354 [85.3%]). Together, these studies recruited 19 311 participants, including 13 812 individuals with past or current substance use disorders. Most studies could potentially support biomarker development, including diagnostic (143 [32.7%]), treatment response (141 [32.3%]), severity (84 [19.2%]), prognostic (30 [6.9%]), predictive (25 [5.7%]), monitoring (12 [2.7%]), and susceptibility (2 [0.5%]) biomarkers. A total of 155 interventional studies used FDCR, mostly to investigate pharmacological (67 [43.2%]) or cognitive/behavioral (51 [32.9%]) interventions; 141 studies used FDCR as a response measure, of which 125 (88.7%) reported significant interventional FDCR alterations; and 25 studies used FDCR as an intervention outcome predictor, with 24 (96%) finding significant associations between FDCR markers and treatment outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance Based on this systematic review and the proposed biomarker development framework, there is a pathway for the development and regulatory qualification of FDCR-based biomarkers of addiction and recovery. Further validation could support the use of FDCR-derived measures, potentially accelerating treatment development and improving diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive clinical judgments.
|
|
