Key result
neuroMoon neurofeedback shows no benefit over sham or NeuroTracker for improving cognitive abilities.
Why the study?
Neurocognitive assessment tools are proposed to optimize perceptual-cognitive performance, but the feasibility and efficacy of the novel neurofeedback system neuroMoon compared to established tools were uninvestigated.
Does neuroMoon neurofeedback training improve cognitive abilities compared to sham or NeuroTracker in young athletes?
RCT (n=31)
Single-blind
Randomly assigned
No
Does neuroMoon neurofeedback training improve cognitive abilities compared to sham or NeuroTracker in young athletes?
p-value: p=>0.05
A novel neurofeedback system (neuroMoon) induced similar improvements in cognitive abilities as NeuroTracker and sham stimulation in young athletes, suggesting a potential non-specific training effect.
No advantage over sham in young athletes; challenges specific efficacy of neurofeedback/NeuroTracker and supports sham-controlled designs in cognitive training trials.
Neurocognitive assessment tools have been proposed to optimize, maintain, and improve perceptual-cognitive performance. Here, we investigated the feasibility and efficacy of a novel neurofeedback system, neuroMoon (nM), on cognitive abilities compared with one of the most popular perceptual-cognitive training (PCT) tools both in sports and rehabilitation called NeuroTracker (NT). Thirty-one young athletes performed a comprehensive battery of cognitive tests from the Vienna Test System before and after a 12-session computer-based cognitive training program using nM (n = 11, age 22.6 ± 3.8 years), nM sham (CON, n = 10, age 20.3 ± 1.2 years) or NT (n = 10, age 20.5 ± 1.7 years) device. A series of repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to detect changes in cognitive abilities in response to the training. Participants had faster median reaction time in both the color-naming and word-reading conditions of the Stroop test (all p < 0.005), regardless of group. Regarding the task switching test, statistical analysis indicated faster working time and mean reaction time of the incongruent stimuli, repetition task, and shifting task (all p < 0.005), nevertheless, these changes were also regardless of group. In addition, we found fewer omitted (pre: 17.5 ± 8.3, post: 6.4 ± 1.5, d = 1.311) and more correct (pre: 261.6 ± 36.1, post: 278.6 ± 38.7, d = - 1.020) post-intervention answers in the determination test, regardless of group. Finally, participants in each group performed the digit span backward test with larger post (6.42 ± 1.54) vs. pre (5.55 ± 1.43) scores following the PCT (d = - 0.801). Overall, PCT with nM as compared with NT induced similar results in cognitive abilities suggesting its potential to be used to achieve and maintain better mental performance. However, considering that the sham stimulation also induced similar improvements in cognitive abilities, future studies should clearly determine the cognitive measures that could benefit from NF training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horváth et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Healthy young athletes (n=31). neuroMoon (nM) neurofeedback system vs. NeuroTracker (NT) and sham neuroMoon was evaluated on Changes in cognitive abilities (Vienna Test System and Digit Span Backwards) (p=>0.05). A 12-session cognitive training program using the neuroMoon neurofeedback system, NeuroTracker, or sham stimulation induced similar improvements in cognitive abilities with no significant between-group differences.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: