The core learning mechanisms of neurofeedback (NF) training are associative, implicit, and, consequently, largely impervious to consciousness. Many other aspects of training that determine training outcomes, however, are accessible to conscious processing. The outcomes of sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) up-regulation training are related to the strategies reported by participants. The classification methods of individual strategies employed hitherto were possibly under influence of the idiosyncratic interpretation of the rater. To measure and possibly overcome this limitation, we employed independent raters to analyze strategies reported during SMR up-regulation training. Sixty-two healthy young participants took part in a single session of SMR up-regulation training. After completing six blocks of training, in which they received either simple visual feedback or a gamified version thereof, participants were required to report the strategies employed. Their individual learning outcomes were computed as well. Results point out that individual strategies as well as NF learning outcomes were not particularly sensitive to the presence of gamified elements in training the SMR up-regulation. A high degree of consistency across independent raters classifying strategy reports was observed. Some strategies were more typical of responders while other ones were more common among non-responders. In summary, we demonstrate a more objective and transparent way to analyze individual mental strategies to shed more light on the differences between NF responders and non-responders.

Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based neurofeedback (NF) is mainly used in clinical settings as a therapeutic intervention or to optimize performance in healthy individuals. Home-based NF systems are available and might facilitate general access to NF training, especially when repeated training sessions are necessary. However, it remains an open question whether NF training at home is possible without remote monitoring. In the present study, we assessed the capacity of healthy individuals to modulate their own EEG activity when using a home-based NF training system in a comparable manner as if participants had purchased a commercially available NF system. Participants’ face-to-face contact with experimenters was reduced to a minimum, and instructions were provided only in the form of written information or videos. Initially, 38 participants performed 9 sessions of sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) (12–15 Hz) based NF training (three generalization sessions, six training sessions). An active control group (n = 19) received feedback on random EEG frequencies. Because of technical problems, bad EEG data quality, or non-compliance, 21 participants had to be excluded from the final data analysis, providing first evidence for the difficulties of non-supervised home-based NF training. In this study, participants were not able to modulate their own brain activity in a desired direction during NF training. Our results indicate that personal interaction with a NF expert might be of relevance and that remote supervision of the training data and more direct communication with the NF users are necessary to enable successful NF training performance. We provide suggestions for the development and implementation of home-based NF systems.