000101254 001__ 101254
000101254 005__ 20220405150416.0
000101254 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.neucli.2020.03.001
000101254 0248_ $$2sideral$$a118018
000101254 037__ $$aART-2020-118018
000101254 041__ $$aeng
000101254 100__ $$aGadea, M.
000101254 245__ $$aEffects of a single session of SMR neurofeedback training on anxiety and cortisol levels
000101254 260__ $$c2020
000101254 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000101254 5203_ $$aObjectives: According to some studies, a putatively calming effect of EEG neurofeedback training could be useful as a therapeutic tool in psychiatric practice. With the aim of elucidating this possibility, we tested the efficacy of a single session of ¿sensorimotor (SMR)/¿theta neurofeedback training for mood improvement in 32 healthy men, taking into account trainability, independence and interpretability of the results.
Methods: A pre-post design, with the following dependent variables, was applied: (i) psychometric measures of mood with regards to anxiety, depression, and anger (Profile of Mood State, POMS, and State Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI); (ii) biological measures (salivary levels of cortisol); (iii) neurophysiological measures (EEG frequency band power analysis). In accordance with general recommendations for research in neurofeedback, a control group receiving sham neurofeedback was included.
Results: Anxiety levels decreased after the real neurofeedback and increased after the sham neurofeedback (P < 0.01, size effect 0.9 for comparison between groups). Cortisol decreased after the experiment in both groups, though with significantly more pronounced effects in the desired direction after the real neurofeedback (P < 0.04; size effect 0.7). The group receiving real neurofeedback significantly enhanced their SMR band (P < 0.004; size effect 0.88), without changes in the theta band. The group receiving sham neurofeedback did not show any EEG changes.
Conclusions: The improvement observed in anxiety was greater in the experimental group than in the sham group, confirmed by both subjective (psychometric) measures and objective (biological) measures. This was demonstrated to be associated with the real neurofeedback, though a nonspecific (placebo) effect likely also contributed.
000101254 536__ $$9info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MEC/FPU-AP2012-05836
000101254 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aAll rights reserved$$uhttp://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/
000101254 590__ $$a3.734$$b2020
000101254 591__ $$aCLINICAL NEUROLOGY$$b80 / 208 = 0.385$$c2020$$dQ2$$eT2
000101254 591__ $$aPHYSIOLOGY$$b25 / 81 = 0.309$$c2020$$dQ2$$eT1
000101254 591__ $$aNEUROSCIENCES$$b133 / 273 = 0.487$$c2020$$dQ2$$eT2
000101254 592__ $$a0.93$$b2020
000101254 593__ $$aMedicine (miscellaneous)$$c2020$$dQ2
000101254 593__ $$aPhysiology (medical)$$c2020$$dQ2
000101254 593__ $$aNeurology (clinical)$$c2020$$dQ2
000101254 593__ $$aNeurology$$c2020$$dQ2
000101254 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
000101254 700__ $$aAliño, M.
000101254 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0003-3920-1099$$aHidalgo, V.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000101254 700__ $$aEspert, R.
000101254 700__ $$aSalvador, A.
000101254 7102_ $$14009$$2725$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Psicología y Sociología$$cÁrea Psicobiología
000101254 773__ $$g50, 3 (2020), 167-173$$pNeurophysiol. clin.$$tNeurophysiologie Clinique$$x0987-7053
000101254 8564_ $$s277992$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/101254/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yPostprint
000101254 8564_ $$s1941515$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/101254/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yPostprint
000101254 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:101254$$particulos$$pdriver
000101254 951__ $$a2022-04-05-14:37:34
000101254 980__ $$aARTICLE