TABLE 2.
List of studies using theta neurofeedback protocols with younger adults and main study characteristics
| Study | Target frequency | Electrodes position | Target EF(s) | Direction of NFT | Single versus multiband | Number of NFT sessions | Total minutes of NFT | Sample size | Average age | Control group type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enriquez‐Geppert, Huster, Figge, et al. (2014) | fm‐theta | Fz, FC1, FC2 FCz, Cz | Task‐switching, response inhibition, conflict monitoring, WM | Up | Single | 8 | 240 | 40 | 24.8 | Sham pseudo‐NFT (receiving playback feedback from NFT group) |
| Gonçalves et al. (2018) | theta | Cz | Conflict monitoring | Up | Multi (SMR‐) | 1 | 25 | 30 | 20.7 | Opposite experimental protocol (SMR+, theta ‐) |
| Vasquez et al. (2015) | theta | Cz | Response inhibition | Down | Multi (beta+) | 1 | 30 | 30 | 23.4 | Passive |
| Vernon et al. (2003) | theta | Cz | WM | Up | Multi (delta‐ and alpha‐) | 8 | 120 | 30 | 22.1 | Different experimental protocol (SMR+, theta‐, beta‐) |
| Xiong et al. (2014) | theta | Fz, FCz, Cz, C1, C2 | WM | Up | Multi (alpha‐) | 5 | 10 | 48 | Not reported | 3 control groups: sham random NFT, non‐training, behavior‐training |
| Wang and Hsieh (2013) | fm‐theta | Fz | Conflict monitoring | Up | Single | 12 | 180 | 16 | 22.2 | Sham NFT (to enhance a randomly selected frequency) |
Abbreviation: NFT, neurofeedback training.