Background: Although biofeedback using electrophysiology has been explored extensively, the approach of using neurofeedback corresponding to hemodynamic response is a relatively young field. Real time functional magnetic resonance imaging-based neurofeedback (rt-fMRI-NF) uses sensory feedback to operantly reinforce patterns of neural response. It can be used, for example, to alter visual perception, increase brain connectivity, and reduce depression symptoms. Within recent years, interest in rt-fMRI-NF in both research and clinical contexts has expanded considerably. As such, building a consensus regarding best practices is of great value. Objective: This systematic review is designed to describe and evaluate the variations in methodology used in previous rt-fMRI-NF studies to provide recommendations for rt-fMRI-NF study designs that are mostly likely to elicit reproducible and consistent effects of neurofeedback. Methods: We conducted a database search for fMRI neurofeedback papers published prior to September 26th, 2019. Of 558 studies identified, 146 met criteria for inclusion. The following information was collected from each study: sample size and type, task used, neurofeedback calculation, regulation procedure, feedback, whether feedback was explicitly related to changing brain activity, feedback timing, control group for active neurofeedback, how many runs and sessions of neurofeedback, if a follow-up was conducted, and the results of neurofeedback training. Results: rt-fMRI-NF is typically upregulation practice based on hemodynamic response from a specific region of the brain presented using a continually updating thermometer display. Most rt-fMRI-NF studies are conducted in healthy samples and half evaluate its effect on immediate changes in behavior or affect. The most popular control group method is to provide sham signal from another region; however, many studies do not compare use a comparison group. Conclusions: We make several suggestions for designs of future rt-fMRI-NF studies. Researchers should use feedback calculation methods that consider neural response across regions (i.e., SVM or connectivity), which should be conveyed as intermittent, Fede et al. Neurofeedback Guide auditory feedback. Participants should be given explicit instructions and should be assessed on individual differences. Future rt-fMRI-NF studies should use clinical samples; effectiveness of rt-fMRI-NF should be evaluated on clinical/behavioral outcomes at follow-up time points in comparison to both a sham and no feedback control group.

Background In the United States, 13% of adults are estimated to have alcohol use disorder (AUD). Most studies examining the neurobiology of AUD treat individuals with this disorder as a homogeneous group; however, the theories of the neurocircuitry of AUD call for a quantitative and dimensional approach. Previous imaging studies find differences in brain structure, function, and resting-state connectivity in AUD, but few use a multimodal approach to understand the association between severity of alcohol use and the brain differences. Methods Adults (ages 22–60) with problem drinking patterns ( n = 59) completed a behavioral and neuroimaging protocol at the National Institutes of Health. Alcohol severity was quantified with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). In a 3 T MRI scanner, participants underwent a structural MRI as well as resting-state, monetary incentive delay, and face matching fMRI scans. Machine learning was applied and trained using the neural data from MRI scanning. The model was tested for generalizability in a validation sample ( n = 24). Results The resting state-connectivity features model best predicted AUD severity in the naïve sample, compared to task fMRI, structural MRI, combined MRI features, or demographic features. Network connectivity features between salience network, default mode network, executive control network, and sensory networks explained 33% of the variance associated with AUDIT in this model. Conclusions These findings indicate that the neural effects of AUD vary according to severity. Our results emphasize the utility of resting state fMRI as a neuroimaging biomarker for quantitative clinical evaluation of AUD.

No abstract