Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Continuous vs. intermittent neurofeedback to regulate auditory cortex activity of tinnitus patients using real-time fMRI: A pilot study
Univ Hosp Geneva, Dept Radiol & Med informat, Switzerland.
Univ Hosp Geneva, Dept Radiol & Med informat, Switzerland.
Univ Hosp Geneva, Dept Radiol & Med informat, Switzerland.
Univ Hosp Lausanne, Neurotol & Audiol Unit, Dept ENT Head & Neck Surg, Switzerland.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: NeuroImage: Clinical, ISSN 0353-8842, E-ISSN 2213-1582, Vol. 14, 97-104 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The emerging technique of real-time fMRI neurofeedback trains individuals to regulate their own brain activity via feedback from an fMRI measure of neural activity. Optimum feedback presentation has yet to be determined, particularly when working with clinical populations. To this end, we compared continuous against intermittent feedback in subjects with tinnitus.

Fourteen participants with tinnitus completed the whole experiment consisting of nine runs (3 runs × 3 days). Prior to the neurofeedback, the target region was localized within the auditory cortex using auditory stimulation (1 kHz tone pulsating at 6 Hz) in an ON-OFF block design. During neurofeedback runs, participants received either continuous (n = 7, age 46.84 ± 12.01, Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) 49.43 ± 15.70) or intermittent feedback (only after the regulation block) (n = 7, age 47.42 ± 12.39, TFI 49.82 ± 20.28). Participants were asked to decrease auditory cortex activity that was presented to them by a moving bar. In the first and the last session, participants also underwent arterial spin labeling (ASL) and resting-state fMRI imaging. We assessed tinnitus severity using the TFI questionnaire before all sessions, directly after all sessions and six weeks after all sessions. We then compared neuroimaging results from neurofeedback using a general linear model (GLM) and region-of-interest analysis as well as behavior measures employing a repeated-measures ANOVA. In addition, we looked at the seed-based connectivity of the auditory cortex using resting-state data and the cerebral blood flow using ASL data.

GLM group analysis revealed that a considerable part of the target region within the auditory cortex was significantly deactivated during neurofeedback. When comparing continuous and intermittent feedback groups, the continuous group showed a stronger deactivation of parts of the target region, specifically the secondary auditory cortex. This result was confirmed in the region-of-interest analysis that showed a significant down-regulation effect for the continuous but not the intermittent group. Additionally, continuous feedback led to a slightly stronger effect over time while intermittent feedback showed best results in the first session. Behaviorally, there was no significant effect on the total TFI score, though on a descriptive level TFI scores tended to decrease after all sessions and in the six weeks follow up in the continuous group. Seed-based connectivity with a fixed-effects analysis revealed that functional connectivity increased over sessions in the posterior cingulate cortex, premotor area and part of the insula when looking at all patients while cerebral blood flow did not change significantly over time.

Overall, these results show that continuous feedback is suitable for long-term neurofeedback experiments while intermittent feedback presentation promises good results for single session experiments when using the auditory cortex as a target region. In particular, the down-regulation effect is more pronounced in the secondary auditory cortex, which might be more susceptible to voluntary modulation in comparison to a primary sensory region.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 14, 97-104 p.
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-315233DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.023ISI: 000405984300010PubMedID: 28154796OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-315233DiVA: diva2:1073541
Available from: 2017-02-10 Created: 2017-02-10 Last updated: 2017-11-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(752 kB)7 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 752 kBChecksum SHA-512
fd3d5e17ef939b6c6db90ae376e7934e77a377d25a47f806183b55b4ca80b399437c283b42f2f6b611b26e856c6a48e5d2c0b175ed6525839c18bb7185f22e25
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Haller, Sven
By organisation
Radiology
In the same journal
NeuroImage: Clinical
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 7 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 409 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf