Dataset Information

A double-blind trial of decoded neurofeedback intervention for specific phobias.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

A new closed-loop fMRI method called multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement has the potential to alleviate the subjective aversiveness of exposure-based interventions by directly inducing phobic representations in the brain, outside of conscious awareness. The current study seeks to test this method as an intervention for specific phobia.

Methods

In a randomized, double-blind, controlled single-university trial, individuals diagnosed with at least two (1 target, 1 control) animal subtype specific phobias were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 1, 3, or 5 sessions of multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement in which they were rewarded for implicit activation of a target animal representation. Amygdala response to phobic stimuli was assessed by study staff blind to target and control animal assignments. Pre-treatment to post-treatment differences were analyzed with a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA.

Results

A total of 23 participants (69.6% female) were randomized to receive 1 (n=8), 3 (n=7), or 5 (n=7) sessions of multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement. Eighteen (n=6 each group) participants were analyzed for our primary outcome. After neuro-reinforcement, we observed an interaction indicating a significant decrease in amygdala response for the target phobia but not the control phobia. No adverse events or dropouts were reported as a result of the intervention.

Conclusion

Results suggest multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement can specifically reduce threat signatures in specific phobia. Consequently, this intervention may complement conventional psychotherapy approaches with a non-distressing experience for patients seeking treatment. This trial sets the stage for a larger randomized clinical trial to replicate these results and examine the effects on real-life exposure.

Clinical trial registration

The now-closed trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT03655262.

SUBMITTER: Cushing CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11312662 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A double-blind trial of decoded neurofeedback intervention for specific phobias.

Cushing Cody A CA Lau Hakwan H Kawato Mitsuo M Craske Michelle G MG Taschereau-Dumouchel Vincent V

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20240801

<h4>Aim</h4>A new closed-loop fMRI method called multi-voxel neuro-reinforcement has the potential to alleviate the subjective aversiveness of exposure-based interventions by directly inducing phobic representations in the brain, outside of conscious awareness. The current study seeks to test this method as an intervention for specific phobia.<h4>Methods</h4>In a randomized, double-blind, controlled single-university trial, individuals diagnosed with at least two (1 target, 1 control) animal sub ...[more]

PMID: 39132473

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine delayed effects of theta-beta ratio (TBR) neurofeedback (NF) for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 25 months after baseline, ∼21 months after end of treatment.MethodChildren aged 7 to 10 years with rigorously diagnosed ADHD had been randomized to 38 sessions of TBR NF (n = 84) or control treatment (n = 58) of identical appearance, intensity/frequency, and duration, differing only in that reinforcement for controls was based on a pre-recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) of another child. Child, parent, and all site staff were blinded until after 25-month assessments, with only one-fourth able to guess the control treatment correctly. Baseline assessments were repeated off medication after 25 months.ResultsOf the 142 participants, 120 had 25-month follow-up (84.5% retention). Only 12 participants (6 controls) had NF after the study treatment, greatly retaining the randomization. The primary outcome, parent-rated inattention, was not significantly different between treatments despite large pre-post effect sizes (NF recipients, d = 1.63; controls, d = 1.42). Most secondary measures showed the same pattern. Response rates (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement ≤2) were 58.6% of NF recipients and 66% of controls (not significant). Marginally more controls than NF recipients needed medication (57.1% vs 38.6%, p = .059); specifically, 7.1% of NF recipients and 4% of controls had reduced medication need, whereas 34.3% of NF recipients and 50% of controls needed more medication (p = 0.084).ConclusionMost of the large within-group improvement from the NF treatment package reported by unblinded studies and replicated in this blinded study reflects nonspecific effects, not specific effects of deliberate down-training of EEG theta-beta power ratio. At 25-month follow-up, it appears comparable to the evidence-based Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA) treatments, suggesting a psychotherapeutic/behavioral effect.Clinical trial registration informationDouble-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT02251743.Diversity & inclusion statementWe worked to ensure sex and gender balance in the recruitment of human participants. We worked to ensure race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants. We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group.

Project description:Neurofeedback studies using real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI) have recently incorporated the multi-voxel pattern decoding approach, allowing for fMRI to serve as a tool to manipulate fine-grained neural activity embedded in voxel patterns. Because of its tremendous potential for clinical applications, certain questions regarding decoded neurofeedback (DecNef) must be addressed. Specifically, can the same participants learn to induce neural patterns in opposite directions in different sessions? If so, how does previous learning affect subsequent induction effectiveness? These questions are critical because neurofeedback effects can last for months, but the short- to mid-term dynamics of such effects are unknown. Here we employed a within-subjects design, where participants underwent two DecNef training sessions to induce behavioural changes of opposing directionality (up or down regulation of perceptual confidence in a visual discrimination task), with the order of training counterbalanced across participants. Behavioral results indicated that the manipulation was strongly influenced by the order and the directionality of neurofeedback training. We applied nonlinear mathematical modeling to parametrize four main consequences of DecNef: main effect of change in confidence, strength of down-regulation of confidence relative to up-regulation, maintenance of learning effects, and anterograde learning interference. Modeling results revealed that DecNef successfully induced bidirectional confidence changes in different sessions within single participants. Furthermore, the effect of up- compared to down-regulation was more prominent, and confidence changes (regardless of the direction) were largely preserved even after a week-long interval. Lastly, the effect of the second session was markedly diminished as compared to the effect of the first session, indicating strong anterograde learning interference. These results are interpreted in the framework of reinforcement learning and provide important implications for its application to basic neuroscience, to occupational and sports training, and to therapy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether theta/beta-ratio (TBR) electroencephalographic biofeedback (neurofeedback [NF]) has a specific effect on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) beyond nonspecific benefit.MethodIn a 2-site double-blind randomized clinical trial, 144 children aged 7 to 10 years with rigorously diagnosed moderate/severe ADHD and theta/beta-ratio (TBR) ≥4.5 were randomized 3:2 to deliberate TBR downtraining versus a control of equal duration, intensity, and appearance. Two early dropouts left 142 children for modified intent-to-treat analysis. The control used prerecorded electroencephalograms with the participant's artifacts superimposed. Treatment was programmed via Internet by an off-site statistician-guided co-investigator. Fidelity was 98.7% by trainers/therapists and 93.2% by NF expert monitor. The primary outcome was parent- and teacher-rated inattention; analysis was mixed-effects regression. Because the expense and effort of NF can be justified only by enduring benefit, follow-ups were integrated.ResultsBlinding was excellent. Although both groups showed significant improvement (p < .001, d = 1.5) in parent/teacher-rated inattention from baseline to treatment end and 13-month follow-up, NF was not significantly superior to the control condition at either time point on this primary outcome (d = 0.01, p = .965 at treatment end; d = 0.23, p = .412 at 13-month follow-up). Responders (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] = 1-2) were 61% of NF and 54% of controls (p = .36). Adverse events were distributed proportionally between treatments. The 13-month follow-up found nonsignificant improvement from treatment end for NF (d = 0.1), with mild deterioration for controls (d = -0.07). NF required significantly less medication at follow-up (p = .012).ConclusionThis study does not support a specific effect of deliberate TBR NF at either treatment end or 13-month follow-up. Participants will be reassessed at 25-month follow-up.Clinical trial registration informationDouble-Blind 2-Site Randomized Clinical Trial of Neurofeedback for ADHD; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT02251743.

Project description:See Thibault et al. (doi:10.1093/awx033) for a scientific commentary on this article.Neurofeedback training builds upon the simple concept of instrumental conditioning, i.e. behaviour that is rewarded is more likely to reoccur, an effect Thorndike referred to as the 'law of effect'. In the case of neurofeedback, information about specific electroencephalographic activity is fed back to the participant who is rewarded whenever the desired electroencephalography pattern is generated. If some kind of hyperarousal needs to be addressed, the neurofeedback community considers sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback as the gold standard. Earlier treatment approaches using sensorimotor-rhythm neurofeedback indicated that training to increase 12-15 Hz sensorimotor rhythm over the sensorimotor cortex during wakefulness could reduce attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and epilepsy symptoms and even improve sleep quality by enhancing sleep spindle activity (lying in the same frequency range). In the present study we sought to critically test whether earlier findings on the positive effect of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback on sleep quality and memory could also be replicated in a double-blind placebo-controlled study on 25 patients with insomnia. Patients spent nine polysomnography nights and 12 sessions of neurofeedback and 12 sessions of placebo-feedback training (sham) in our laboratory. Crucially, we found both neurofeedback and placebo feedback to be equally effective as reflected in subjective measures of sleep complaints suggesting that the observed improvements were due to unspecific factors such as experiencing trust and receiving care and empathy from experimenters. In addition, these improvements were not reflected in objective electroencephalographic-derived measures of sleep quality. Furthermore, objective electroencephalographic measures that potentially reflected mechanisms underlying the efficacy of neurofeedback such as spectral electroencephalographic measures and sleep spindle parameters remained unchanged following 12 training sessions. A stratification into 'true' insomnia patients and 'insomnia misperceivers' (subjective, but no objective sleep problems) did not alter the results. Based on this comprehensive and well-controlled study, we conclude that for the treatment of primary insomnia, neurofeedback does not have a specific efficacy beyond unspecific placebo effects. Importantly, we do not find an advantage of neurofeedback over placebo feedback, therefore it cannot be recommended as an alternative to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, the current (non-pharmacological) standard-of-care treatment. In addition, our study may foster a critical discussion that generally questions the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and emphasizes the importance of demonstrating neurofeedback efficacy in other study samples and disorders using truly placebo and double-blind controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundNutrition is an important modifiable risk factor in Alzheimer's disease. Previous trials of the multinutrient Fortasyn Connect showed benefits in mild Alzheimer's disease dementia. LipiDiDiet investigated the effects of Fortasyn Connect on cognition and related measures in prodromal Alzheimer's disease. Here, we report the 24-month results of the trial.MethodsLipiDiDiet was a 24-month randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial (11 sites in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden), with optional 12-month double-blind extensions. The trial enrolled individuals with prodromal Alzheimer's disease, defined according to the International Working Group (IWG)-1 criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to active product (125 mL once-a-day drink containing Fortasyn Connect) or control product. Randomisation was computer-generated centrally in blocks of four, stratified by site. All study personnel and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in a neuropsychological test battery (NTB) score. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. Safety analyses included all participants who consumed at least one study product dose. This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, number NTR1705.FindingsBetween April 20, 2009, and July 3, 2013, 311 of 382 participants screened were randomly assigned to the active group (n=153) or control group (n=158). Mean change in NTB primary endpoint was -0·028 (SD 0·453) in the active group and -0·108 (0·528) in the control group; estimated mean treatment difference was 0·098 (95% CI -0·041 to 0·237; p=0·166). The decline in the control group was less than the prestudy estimate of -0·4 during 24 months. 66 (21%) participants dropped out of the study. Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (22%) participants in the active group and 30 (19%) in control group (p=0·487), none of which were regarded as related to the study intervention.InterpretationThe intervention had no significant effect on the NTB primary endpoint over 2 years in prodromal Alzheimer's disease. However, cognitive decline in this population was much lower than expected, rendering the primary endpoint inadequately powered. Group differences on secondary endpoints of disease progression measuring cognition and function and hippocampal atrophy were observed. Further study of nutritional approaches with larger sample sizes, longer duration, or a primary endpoint more sensitive in this pre-dementia population, is needed.FundingEuropean Commission 7th Framework Programme.

Dataset Information

A double-blind trial of decoded neurofeedback intervention for specific phobias.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical trial registration

Publications

A double-blind trial of decoded neurofeedback intervention for specific phobias.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets