Figure 2.

The neurofeedback training performance and the self-reported task load and strategies. A, The performance of the neurofeedback control, quantified by the difference in the basketball's final positions between training and no training conditions, using the left hemisphere (C₃) did not correlate with that using the right hemisphere (C₄) within the same participant in the real feedback group. B, In the real feedback group, participants were able to control the position of the basketball with its final position significantly higher in the training condition, T, compared with no training condition, N. C, The differences in the basketball's final positions (presented online) between the training and no training conditions were also significant for the sham feedback group. D, The basketball's final position for the training and no training conditions would also have been significantly different if they had been calculated based on the EEGs measured in real time. Results for each individual hemisphere were shown in the plots on the left, with the dots and crosses indicating the individual averages and SEMs. The shading of the dots indicates the difference between no training and training conditions, with darker blue and orange indicating higher measurement in the training and no training conditions, respectively. The x-axis of the histogram on the diagonal refers to the difference between no training and training conditions (N-T) and the y-axis refers to the number of cases. The red dotted line indicates zero. Bar plots on the right show the group averages (mean ± SEM, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). E, The NASA-TLX scores given by the subjects suggested that there was no difference in self-reported task load between real and sham feedback groups. F, Similar strategies for controlling the ball's movement were reported by the participants in real and sham groups.